This is an archive of past discussions with User:Amaury. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Do not correct comments in talk pages. Talk page comments pretty much belong to other editors, and, except in certain cases, shouldn't be modified by other editors. It's OK to remove vandalism. It's OK to remove "forum" comments, where someone has just posted something like "I think Miley Cyrus is the greatest!" or other crap like that. But correcting other editors spelling, capitalization, and grammar? Strictly off limits. That's an offense that can get you blocked if you repeat it.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, you get busted for every little thing here. No offense, Kww. I'll stop. It's just that every little thing gets you busted (talking about other users... not just me.) - Amaury (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most users don't have the kind of trouble you've had. I think you would do yourself well to focus a bit on working on article content on a few areas that you are interested in until you get more of a feeling of how things work. The impression I get of you is that you are someone that sincerely wants to help, but you charge ahead a little bit too fast.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please review the administrative report here regarding the deleted materialy you have just re-added at Talk:Barack Obama? You are also leaving inappropriate warnings on editors' talk pages.[1][2][3] Perhaps you were not aware that this matter is already escalated to an administrative notice board. If you think this is an issue, please discuss it in the appropriate place but do not reinsert material that has been removed on WP:BLP grounds, or join an edit war on pages like the Obama talk page that are under article probation (notice to follow). Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also put January instead of February. Haha! Anyway, yeah... I was not aware of the discussion until you posted on my talk page. I thought it was vandalism. Thank you for contacting me. - Amaury (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages per WP:TALK. When they do this, please do not revert it. AndyManchester is perfectly within his rights to remove them. It seems you know this since you have removed warnings and notices on your own talk page. Besides, his edits do not appear to be vandalism. They may or may not be correct, but they certainly appear to be good faith edits. Please be careful. Looking at the WP:ANI discussion on you, the community appears to be losing patience. Please be careful. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes08:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just to make sure that I don't give the wrong impression, I'm not an admin. I'm pretty sure you remember that and I didn't take your last comment to imply that I was, but I just like to be careful not to misrepresent myself. Despite whether you feel that the other users are nice or not, you really should try to listen to what they are saying. For example, below, Deor left a warning that it seems you didn't care for. While you may not like the template, you would be better off listening to what Deor is saying. It is not in good practice to refactor other people's talk page messages. Even if it is just to correct a typo, you should not do it. Also, while you may not have liked Elbutler'sWP:MENTOR suggestion, it was good advice, and it was quite nice of her to offer to do it herself. I would ask you to reconsider, as it stands, you are on pretty thin ice. Please listen to what others are saying more and be a little less dismissive. While you may feel that they could be nicer, they are speaking in the best interests of Wikipedia and trying to help you. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes20:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell that you want to be a good editor, so I'm going to try again to talk to you. First, let's talk background here: you have 533 edits. In those 533 edits, you've managed to bother people enough that you've been blocked twice, for 24 hours each. I have over 22,000 edits, and I've also been blocked twice: both by mistake or misunderstanding, and for under 3 hours each. You should be able to understand that that means I've learned a bit about how to edit effectively here. If I got blocked at your rate, I'd have been kicked off Wikipedia years ago ... they don't let people get 45 blocks, and that's how many it would have been.
You really need to stop letting anger show. It's impossible not to get pissed off at people here. It's going to happen. Do you think calling them "stupid" or "smarty-pants" helps? Does telling someone that's giving you advice to "shut it" help? Nope. That's pretty much what got you blocked this time. Especially when people that you do it to people that are trying to help you learn something about how to edit here.
As for your editing, some of it's OK. The articles that you created have a common problem, and I'll try to explain it. High-schools simplify a lot of stuff. They teach things as being absolutely true, when in fact it's just one of several techniques, or sometimes just your teacher's or textbook author's opinion. When I pointed you at English grammar as containing everything in your Elements of grammar article, I meant it. Had you stopped for a moment and studied that article, you would have learned a lot about English grammar, and would have seen for yourself that your article was redundant. Drmies tried to give you the same advice, and all you did was get angry at him, and that's silly. Look at his userpage, look at his edits. He teaches language instruction, is fluent in four languages and familiar with two more. Hard to tell from my userpage, but you should be able to guess from my hobbies and list of places that I've lived: I function well in three languages and am familiar with three more. Our advice is sound: we know more about grammar than you do, and when we try to help you, we don't deserve to be bitten. You would be well served to listen instead of bite.
Next time you want to create an article, why don't you leave a message on my page and describe what article you want to build? I can help you figure out whether its appropriate, and where it would fit in Wikipedia if it is. If you work on fitting in and helping, things will go smoothly. If you just bite the people that try to help, life will go badly quickly.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then listen to your friend when he tells you that that was completely uncalled for and inappropriate. Elbutler hasn't ruined anything that I can see, and was pointing out that you had, indeed, missed my point. No one is saying that your English teacher doesn't know things. I'm saying that he is teaching you a highly simplified form of English grammar. The things he teaches you, by and large, are already covered, and don't warrant individual articles. That problem is an editing problem, and won't get you blocked if you listen to people's advice. Things like You stay out of this! You've ruined enough are a sign of an attitude problem, and that problem will get you blocked.—Kww(talk) 15:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For someone ostensibly interested in English grammar, it's surprising that you would write the grammatically incorrect "This is between Kww and I," rather than "This is between Kww and me." Bongomatic18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Here's free advice from an English grammar teacher. Prepositions such as between govern the object case (that is, according to the normative grammar which your high school teacher is certainly trying to impart to you. In reality, the situation is of course far more complex, and you may be consoled, your "mistake" isn't necessarily really one.) Fut.Perf.☼20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eugene Krabs. Perhaps you are not aware of the "New section" or "+" tab on the top of pages, but it makes it easy for an editor to create a new section at the bottom of a page. This is conventionally what an editor does to add a new topic to a Talk page. As you will see if you try it, it adds a heading-level divider. So notwithstanding your dislike of first-level headings, you'll be fighting against the tools to keep your dividers as second-level headings. Bongomatic23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to revise the avalanche article. There are many errors in the existing article. Does Wikipedia make everything so difficult? If you actually looked at my changes, you'd see that they don't constitute vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerandomicicle (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not anywhere where you'd stand a chance right now. Rack up a year without a block and several thousand constructive edits, and it's worth talking about.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I fully agree with Kww's comment, should you be interested in the process of how editors become admins, you can read WP:RFA. Perhaps if you develop an ambition to become an admin it will dissuade you from making so many counterproductive edits in the meanwhile. Bongomatic03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you made this revert? Tagishsimon inserted the coordinates, and you removed them without an explanation. Anytime you revert something that is not obvious vandalism, you should always explain why. Using a WP:ROLLBACK edit summary as you did implies that you are reverting vandalism, which this obviously was not. I saw that you didn't warn place a warning, so I thought that it may have been a mistake; but, you didn't self revert, so I'm not sure. I reverted you for the time being, but I just wanted to see if there was something that I was missing. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes01:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
After reviewing your edits, it looks like you continued to make admin-like edits after Phil Knight cautioned you not to...he even told you that this could get you blocked. Looks like he was right. And what's with the deletion of the coordinates? Once your block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive edits...we definitely have a big need for those around here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh02:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
No, I stopped. I didn't get the warning until after I posted the second block template on another user's talk page. Now unblock me. - Amaury (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't lie, it doesn't give you credibility. You acknowledged the caution at time stamp 00:28, then made 4 more edits, including the ones I was referring to. What, you didn't think we'd actually check? AKRadeckiSpeaketh14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he did respond, just not in the way you or I would expect. He continued to leave the block notices, but only on the talk pages of people that were actually blocked, and crediting the block to the admin that had actually performed the block. Not an edit I would make, but was it disruptive?—Kww(talk) 14:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Akradecki: Yes, I made more edits, but I was just fixing that one because he got blocked for something else and I put disruptive editing, but I never actually posted more block templates on other talk pages. I only posted block templates on two people's talk pages. After I posted the second one, I noticed I had a message from PhilKnight regarding those edits. I stopped. I didn't post any more block templates on other people's talk pages. I was just fixing some errors on that second one. Please reconsider this block. Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm inclined to let things stand, as this is your 4th block (if it was your first, I'd be a bit more lenient, but at some point, you need to realize that we take disruption pretty seriously.). I won't have any heartburn, though, if you put up another unblock template and get a second opinion from another admin. AKRadeckiSpeaketh23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been blocked again. And by the way, i'd like to point out that you can't "ban someone from your talk page", because it isn't "yours": it belongs to everyone, anyone can post on it. Are you going to act mature and listen now? Elbutler (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[4] is just wrong. That edit was not vandalism. Just because you don't like someone's edit does not make it vandalism. How many different users will have to point this out to you before you make some effort to understand? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are right, a mistake is not vandalism and getting in an edit war is not the way to deal with a content dispute. Discuss it on the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. A non-registered user fixed a typo on the page. "...whe nshe..." fixed to "...when she...". I'm not reverting the typo fix that was made, Cool Cat is... so you're wrong there by saying I was reverting the typo fix, because I wasn't. - Amaury (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the re-titling of the section. That seems to be the core of this disagreement, and you two need to talk it over instead of edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That just means it's wrong, not vandalism. Vandalism is an edit made with the intent of harming Wikipedia. That's why reverting vandalism is not subject to the 3RR policy. In this case, the other editor simply appears to be mistaken. That means that you have to take the time to convince him he's wrong, and, if you revert more than three times in 24 hours, you are subject to blocking. In this case, I can assure you ... revert that edit again, even after waiting, and you will nearly certainly be blocked. I took care of the typo. Please discuss the other problem on the talk page.—Kww(talk) 02:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that you've already began the discussion, so this appears to already be in the process of getting resolved, but I wanted to expand a bit on what Kww pointed out and, hopefully, help avoid this in the future. In the future, when you're reverting a good faith edit, instead of using a Rollback edit summary, try explaining why you believe that the edit was incorrect. Using a simple "reverted edits by" edit summary is fine when it is a case of obvious vandalism, such as when someone randomly inserts a curse word, but in good faith edits, an explanation should be given. If you start explaining using edit summaries, I think that you'll find yourself in these situations a lot less often. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes03:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that when the series started in Japan it was simply known as "Pokemon", the first season was nameless. "Indgo League" is a just a name used on the DVDs. This is the same reason you kept trying to move pages. And that i'm watching you, if you revert that page one more time between here and tonight you can be reported to WP:AIV and blocked post-haste. The Cool Kat (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think we should remove the reference to Arun Kumar from Madiga wiki page. You seem to be reverting back and putting his name. HE is not a madiaga and I dont think this page should be his advertisement page. Let me know your thoughts. I believe wiki should provide information but not serve as an advertisement media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.141.116 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Sorry about not leaving a note on the edit summary about removing some content. The robot searches for Canadian road articles, and a person must manually remove false positives. The robot works fairly well, however some articles do get added to the list which are not about Canadian roads, or are Canadian articles not about roads. I added a note to the talk page, if I miss another edit summary. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, the way we Americans spell things seems better (behavior, color, flavor) because they're spelled more or less how they sound, but with British spelling (behaviour, colour, flavour), they're not like that. That's just my opinion. - Amaury (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor has removed information because it is unsourced, you need to provide sources before restoring it.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I wanted to let you know that I reverted a couple of your edits to Bart and wanted to explain why. The point of disambiguation pages are the links. MOS:DAB explains how they should be laid out. WP:Red links aren't as useful as they were during the early stages of Wikipedia, but they are still used and shouldn't be removed altogether (especially on disam. pages) also, regarding the entry that the IP removed, a quick Google search shows that he is not WP:Notable. I keep a lot of disambig. name articles watchlisted because a lot of people tend to add themselves to them, like in this case. Cheers! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool :) Yep. I set all of my clocks last night except for in my Wikipedia preferences. I forgot about it, and it confused me when I checked my watchlist today. I thought all of the edits I checked were made an hour earlier :) Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes06:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection, except perhaps to the last one. I think "List of Pokémon: Diamond, Pearl and Platinum episodes" would work better in conjunction with the other changes you've suggested. I'd recommend bringing it up at the Pokémon WikiProject beforehand though. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As for the last one, it looks like Diamond and Pearl Platinum is its name because of the Japanese logo. I see "Diamond & Pearl (Japanese word, which I'm guessing means "Platinum")." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable alumni of minor league teams
Hi. Another editor, NatureBoyMD, has come up with what I think is a good and thoughtful template and conditions for a "notable alumni" list for a minor league team that interests him. See [5]. I thought that before he finalizes it, it/he might benefit from you taking a glance at it, and giving him any comments that you may have, since I could see it being used for other minor league teams (its better than anything I've seen), and you are a baseball editor whose views I respect. Feel free to leave your comments on it for him on my home talk page at the above url, as that is where he and I have been discussing it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your request on my watchlist. And before i you're given rollback rights i thought i should give you some advice. Please be careful having rollback rights is a big responsibility. The power can be abused easily, if you use it to revert anything other than obvious vandalism is known as misuse, and any admin can remove your rollback rights. When i got mine i lost them after a few days, and it took me a while to get them back. I'm pretty sure you're ready but remember, use it wisely. I know you don't like me, but i don't want you to make the same mistake as me. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry your request was turned down again. But as Perdro said, i don't think you have enough expirence, you've only been editing for a few months and most rollbackers haven't been blocked more than once. I hope you don't take this personally. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eugene. Sorry that your request was denied before I had a chance to comment. Don't be discouraged though, I have no doubt that you'll get it eventually. I looked through your reverts for the past month, and I'll try to give you a little advice that hopefully will help your next request be successful. I'll start by saying that you have made significant improvements. Anytime that I have noticed any little mistake that you've made, I've been quick to point it out to you. On the other hand, I haven't really commented on any of your good contributions. I'm sorry about that. I really am very proud of you for the progress that you have made. Now that I've said that, I'll get back to nit-picking :)
These reverts really gave me the most pause:[6], [7], [8], [9], [10] In all of these reverts, the other editor left an edit summary explaining why they were making the edit. Had they not left an edit summary, it wouldn't have been too bad, but anytime a truthful edit summary is left, you really should not revert without an explanation. In these cases if you are unable to explain why you are reverting, then it is usually best just to leave it be. If the edit is truly incorrect, someone else will come along and deal with it.
There are really 3 things that I think that you should work on. 1) Be be careful about reverting the removal of unsourced content. Per WP:V, content should be verifiable. If it's not and it's removed, you really shouldn't reinsert it without also providing a reliable source. 2) Make sure to read edit summaries and always assume good faith when one is left (assuming that it is truthful). 3) Bad edits are not necessarily vandalism and an explanation may help the other editor see what they did wrong. This is especially important to remember when editing articles about cartoons and such, as they attract many children. Sorry for being long-winded and probably being WP:TLDR, but I hope this helps at least a little! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes01:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must've opened 6 & 7 two different ways since it was the same diff, but different URL. Sorry about that, I've stricken one of the duplicates. I also want to reiterate that I wasn't saying that the reverts were wrong. Most likely a valid argument could've been made both ways, just that it was a content dispute and not vandalism, so an explanation was warranted. Everyone makes these mistakes, so don't let it bother you. Just keep learning from these mistakes, and you'll do fine. Happy editing! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not too much trouble, could you, like you did with my sort of bad edits, point out links to my good/significant improvement edits? ^^ - Amaury (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. One thing that I noticed was that you made a few self reverts after you were contacted by the reverted editor. I believe last month, there was a similar situation where you kept on reverting despite receiving a message. You also undid the warnings, which I think is an extremely important thing to do, but unfortunately, often overlooked by many. Overall, your reverting seems to be much better. There were a lot of good vandalism reverts. Whereas before, it seemed that there were several episodes where you jumped in the middle of an edit war and called one side vandalism, I don't see near as much of that. You seem to be figuring out the difference between "bad edits" or "edits that you don't agree with" and vandalism. There are also edits like this that you made just a little while ago. Just adding that small edit summary explains why you reverted and should let the other editor know why they were reverted. The same with this one. The edit looks to be obviously incorrect, and while edits like that are often rolled back, that little note is much more informative. Your latest contributions also look to be much more inline with our manual of style than your earlier ones. You've also been discussing edits on talk pages a lot more than before, which is great. One of the bad things about Wikipedia, of which I am just as guilty as the next person, is that the better job you do, often times, the less feedback you get. People, myself included, are generally very quick to jump on mistakes, but far less inclined to acknowledge good edits. Often, the less you hear from people, the better the job you're doing. That doesn't mean that the good edits aren't noticed though. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol I'll do that, I promise. I probably won't be able to get to it today, I have a lot of paperwork to finish and I want to see what I can do to Wittenberg University. I will in the next day or two though, you've been making too many edits to go through in just a few minutes (not a bad thing) :) Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to February this time because I had already glanced through all of your March edits. This may mean that you've already learned from any mistakes that I point out though. I'll try not to point out too much that I can recall that you've already discussed with someone, but I'm sure that I'll miss a conversation and point some stuff out again anyway. If there are any specific edits you want me to comment on, feel free to post them and I will.
First, it's great how you and The Cool Kat have put the past aside and hold no grudges. That shows maturity on both of your parts.
I saw a lot of good reverts in this month as well. In most of the bad reverts I saw, the other editor left a valid edit summary, so just remember what we discussed about that, and you'll do great.
It looks like you did a nice job of placing stub templates to articles. The templates are usually put at the bottom of the article, which you've probably figured out now anyway, but that's not a big deal at all.
I saw a few times where an editor removed warnings from their talk page, and you reverted them to restore the warnings. Per WP:BLANKING, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page and should not be reverted when they do. Removing the warning is an acknowledgment of having read it.
As I'm sure you learned, when you add main article links to character articles like you did here, there really should be an article there, not just a redirect :)
Nice self-revert here. Linking headings is against the MOS, but you must've caught this yourself as I didn't see a message. Nice job.
There were a couple of civility issues that I saw during the AfD, but that appears to have been stress/bad mood more than anything since it wasn't a problem before and hasn't been since, so no major worries there. Everyone has bad days :)
Small typographical/grammar fixes are often overlooked, but very important nonetheless. I saw you make several of these fixes that were good, especially ones like its/it's. Those often get confused or overlooked, so nice job catching them. Just when doing these, try to be mindful of WP:ENGVAR and make sure that it isn't a spelling difference instead. A lot of the spelling differences deal with -OR (US) and -OUR (UK) and -IZE (US) and -ISE (UK), so if you see these, try to think twice before correcting. I didn't see you do this any more, but I noticed this move request where you had mistaken a spelling difference for a misspelling. Just try to keep this in the back of your mind.
You should also be careful about altering other people's talk page comments, even if it is just to correct spelling or grammar. It doesn't bother me, but it is generally considered bad practice and other people might get upset if you edited their comments.
I think that's all I got. Unfortunately, I can't comment too much on a lot of your edits to Pokemon and related subjects. I'm not much of a fiction editor and don't know anything about that particular subject, but most of those edits look reasonable to me. Hope it helps. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start a weekly check-up on my edits (good or bad). We'll do it every Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday (depends). We'll do it today for this week (Thursday). - Amaury (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do that. I won't have much time for the rest of this week, but I glanced through your contibs from the last few days and didn't see anything that really concerned me. I did notice that you reverted in the sandbox a couple of times, which I wouldn't really recommend, but if you do revert because they removed the heading, instead of leaving a vandalism template on their talk page, you should leave a {{uw-sandbox}} notice. The only thing that really caught my eye were a couple of speedy deletion requests [11][12]. One was a song by a notable musician and the other a personality on a notable game show. Claiming to be a part of something notable or being by someone notable is itself a claim to notability. This doesn't necessarily mean that the articles shouldn't be deleted, just not speedy deleted. In situations like those, if you don't feel that the article meets the appropriate notability criteria, you should try WP:PROD or WP:AfD. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the blame on that one. I didn't explain that it would do all of the steps for you if you nominated something for deletion. When you XfD something, it will create the deletion discussion page and transclude it to the appropriate place. If you request protection, it will automatically post it and WP:RFPP, and if you use ARV, it'll automatically place it at WP:AIV. If you click unlink, it'll automatically remove all of the links on other pages to the place where you clicked it. Sorry 'bout that. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Sorry to come back with more concerns, but I'm afraid that if you continue making some of the reverts that you have been, you may lose access to Twinkle and also hurt your chances of getting rollback in the near future. I glanced through a few of your reverts over the past couple of days, and I saw a few that concerned me.
This revert to Never Ending Tour certainly didn't look like vandalism to me. In fact, the original edit looks correct. It removed a statement that the Roundhouse issued. This isn't the place for them to be releasing statements, and as such, I went back and removed it.
I am curious as to why you made this revert to DADIU. The original author appeared to be finished editing it for the time being and removed the tag. I don't see why you would reinsert it unless you were planning on editing it, which doesn't appear to be the case.
I saw a few "Reverted good-faith edits by..." without any additional explanation. Just like before, anytime you revert a good faith edit, you should explain why. The default edit summary is not sufficient because it doesn't explain anything.
These two reverts [13][14] to Gopal Khanna also concern me. The editor appears to be making a good-faith attempt to expand the article. It's fairly obvious that they aren't extremely familiar with how to edit here. They did add a comment that doesn't belong in article space, but the editor probably deserves a nice welcome and help instead of being called a vandal.
I also noticed that you made a few vandalism reverts to the WP:SANDBOX and issued warnings. Since the template we use for warning vandals requests them to use the sandbox, it doesn't really make sense to revert it when they do what we ask. There are some times when it may be appropriate to revert in the sandbox, but usually just extreme cases like when someone starts posting someone's personal information or such.
Not reverts, but I want to remind you something about speedy deletions. Articles do not have to establish notability to survive A7 speedy deletion, it just has to assert it. If the article is about a song made by a big name musician, then that asserts notability. Generally, if the article provides any third party sources, then it is very unlikely to be deleted. Also, unless the page is blatant vandalism, a copyvio, or attack page, you really should give the author some time before requesting speedy deletion. I saw a lot that you tagged within a few minutes of creation. You really should give at least 15 minutes to allow the author a few minutes to work on it. This is a large problem here with a lot of New Page Patrollers (I used to be guilty of it myself).
Patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled page list is the best way to avoid this&'mdash;stuff that's 30 days old that hasn't been expanded is fair game. Bongomatic23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a fairly common trend in a lot of your mistakes. A lot of these were previously reverted by someone else. Remember, the other editor who reverted may well have made a mistake. This could also get you involved in edit wars that you probably don't need to get involved in (edit wars are bad, discussion is good). Always evaluate the edit for yourself instead of just trusting the other reverting editor. If you are unable to explain why you reverted, then you probably shouldn't. One of these situations appeared to happen yesterday on Ronnie Mitchell. I don't know if you realized it, but you were one revert away from violating the three revert rule, which could potentially get you blocked. The other editor appears to have been in violation of WP:SYN, but was discussing it on the talk page, while you weren't giving any explanation via edit summary nor talk page.
Please be careful when using Twinkle. It can be taken away if misused, and too much misuse will more than likely kill any chance of your next request for rollback being successful. Mistakes happen to the best of us, none of us are perfect, but I think that this may be a few too many mistakes for this short amount of time. Besides that, calling a new and inexperienced editor a vandal might well drive off a potentially great editor. Remember, just because an edit removes content (like the edits to Never Ending Tour), doesn't mean that it should be reverted. You really should read it to make sure that it's suitable for an encyclopedia. Also, bad edits are not vandalism (like the edits to Gopal Khanna). If they are trying to help, instead of outright reverting, it is often better to fix what they do wrong and explain why. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I was mainly stating all of that for future reference. As Kww said at your last request for rollback, it seems that you often have trouble seeing the difference between vandalism and edits that you don't agree with. I really just want to help you see where he is coming from with that. I'm sorry if seems like I'm picking on you. That really isn't my intention; my only intention here is to try to help you as much as I can. I know that mistakes are inevitable. I just figure that it's better to be hearing it from me now instead of possibly an admin later :) I just want to help make sure that you don't go through the same problems that you had at the beginning of your WP career. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) Thanks, I really appreciate that. I also don't want to make it sound like I think that you're the only one who makes mistakes. Just a glance at my contribs will quickly show that that isn't true :) Don't go back too early though if you do, I cringe now at seeing some of the things I did when I first started :) Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I noticed you're keeping an eye on the above page too, could you have another look please? There's one ... "editor" who keeps reverting to the pre-cleanup. Thanks Akerbeltz (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you slapped multiple tags on Ruslan Pukhov. Could you explain how the article is confusing to you? I don't understand what you mean. Also, why is it in need of expert opinion? What wikilinks do you mean should be added? It already has many. Offliner (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I still don't understand: what is there that needs to be wikilinked? How is the article a dead end? Why does it need to be expanded (what important info is missing)? Offliner (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by suggesting that you think about opening up a editor review. This would allow you to get feedback from more users than me, which could be beneficial for you because a lot of the time, editors will see things from completely different views. Looking at your recent contribs, most of your reverts looked good, though there were several that that concerned me.
I'm fairly concerned with some of your behavior at Cartoon Network Studioshere and here. You told Lamborghini man that he needs to provide sources, but he is removing information. Information needs to be sourced to be included, not removed. The burden of sourcing would be upon you, not him.
I'm changing this one, as my original glance at it didn't catch exactly what was going on. There really needs to be more discussion from both sides here. Since neither side appears to provide much sourcing, if the content is disputed, then sources needs to be provided by one side. However, this is far from vandalism, so calling it vandalism is not appropriate. This is another edit that you don't agree with, not vandalism.
I fail to see how this edit was a vandalism revert at User talk:Jojhutton. I see that there was a block, unblock, and ANI thread on the issue, so it goes a lot deeper than I've seen, but calling an established editor's edit vandalism goes too far IMHO.
I saw that you reverted a couple of editors who removed warnings from their talk pages here and here. Again, per WP:BLANKING, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages if they wish and should not be reverted.
Your external link removal here on Residual stress looks to be correct. Per WP:ELNO, links to forums should be avoided. However, he had attempted discussion and had you explained why the link shouldn't be included, then you might have avoided a headache for both of you.
The tags placed here on Ruslan Pukhov were excessive. When placing tags like that, you really should explain why on the talk page. Here, it is unclear why you think it is unclear :) It has several links for a small article, so that doesn't really look to be an issue. It's not obvious why it needs cleanup or an expert to look at it, etc.
One other note that's not an issue, but just FYI, in The Cool Kat's April Fools Joke, you said that it wasn't April Fools Day yet, when in fact it was :) Editors here come from all over the world, so in turn, many different time zones. So for things like that, we usually go by UTC, where it was 00:48, 1 April 2009 at the time of the joke.
So, in short, remember you should not ask for sources when someone is removing unsourced content, the burden is on the person adding it (EDIT:This does not appear to have been the whole issue, unfortunately, that's the problem with taking a couple of minutes to try to evaluate a subject that I'm not very familiar with); and, don't revert people when they remove warnings, they are fully allowed to do so. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The show "Teen Titans" IS NOT a Cartoon Network Studios Original. So its going to be removed from the Cartoon Network Studios Article by ME. The show is Warner Brothers Animation. THE ARTICLE FOR TEEN TITANS IS ON WIKIPEDIA. Teen Titans Article [16] Warner Brothers Animation Article [17]. Comic Book Resources. [18].Lamborghini man 1:43 April 18, 2009
Eugene, I want to apologize for the way I acted yesterday. I should have never did the changes that I did with providing reliable sources. But more importantly, I should have never acted the way I did towards you. I apologize for the way I acted, and I hope all can be forgiven and start off fresh.Lamborghini man 15:19 April 18, 2009
Would you care to explain just what was going through your brain when you tagged a comment on a talk page as being an ATTACK page? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not G1, 2, 3, or even G98765432211......the article is tagged for deletion, when the article is deleted, the talk page will be deleted along with it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my own ip address removing the information. I sent him an email regarding the same content so that my information was not publicly displayed. Can I remove the warning from my ip addresses page? CanadianNine15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you dislike this image? It is included on the page. It shows race vehicles of different types lined up before a race. What were you looking for with the photo request? Royalbroil16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not upset, just wondering what you're looking for. Does that image work? It shows cars and trucks from several series. If a better image comes along, then it can be replaced or supplemented. Royalbroil20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is private information that should have never been listed, such as ebay ID's etc. Wikipedia policy states that any private information about an individual can be removed if unaccurate and pesonal in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I would also ask you to remove those listings at the bottom of the page that is saying that real people are hoaxes. That was written by one person's unknowledgable opinion- and is now showing up on goggle searches. Thank you for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the information removed by 4.143.239.89 qualifies for removal under any Wikipedia policy that I can find. I've restored the AFD back to the condition it was when it was closed.—Kww(talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true, any person has a right to remove personal info, adresses, telephone numbers, Id's etc. this talk is spilling over onto google- and many of these editors are very irrespopnsible- especially with calling real people hoaxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the vast majority of what 4.143.239.89 removed could be classified as personal information. A few quick things that were removed, though definitely just a small amount of them (just some that were easily copy and pasted):
the 'references' provided here do not add up
And I think it's a hoax too*Delete - fails WP:V, and appears to be a hoax
Delete almost certainly a hoax, but that doesn't matter: even if it's "true" (and let's face it, it ain't), it's unverifiable by encyclopedic standards.
Little Lyford Pond Camps/ and also Little Lyford Pond Lodge has had its named changed to Little Lyford Lodge/Cabins. I tried to make the appropriate redirects, and edit content of existing information from the Little Lyford Pond Camps article, and heavily edited added information from Appalachian Mountain Club. How can this be interpreted as malicious? Cuvtixo (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I can only do so much at a time! My edits were being made as the updated pages were being put into place. Plus, nothing was put on discussion pages before changing. I feel my good faith efforts have been sabotaged. The maliciousness was not on my part. 71.184.105.86 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was probably blocked after I went to bed. I never even realized I got blocked, but thanks. Cheers to you, too, Toddst. :) - Amaury (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, A7 I could understand - but I'd have downgraded it to notability as IMHO having patents is an assertion of importance. May I suggest you strike out the note you put on the newbies page? ϢereSpielChequers07:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad, I usually do. Must have slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder though. Cheers, MFTU (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) <-- I did it this time =)[reply]
Hi Eugene. You are free to follow the advice in that essay or not. I personally think that even an editor's doing something as obviously in contravention of policy as removing a speedy tag from an article s/he created warrants a template—in the case of an experienced editor, if only to demonstrate that the action is so clearly against policy that there is a template for it. However, you really need to spend some time at the notability guidelines. For example, the version of the article you nominated for deletion clearly states that the subject plays for an NFL team, hence meeting the notability guideline for athletes, which states (in part), that "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are notable. Bongomatic05:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I finally finished going through your latest contribs; you sure have been busy ;) Overall, I believe that you've done very well with your vandalism reverts. There were a few that I didn't agree with, but most I thought looked good. However, I would suggest waiting to request for rollback again. I will explain.
This edit to List of Pokémon: Johto League Champions episodes doesn't appear to be vandalism to me, but, as I'm not familiar with the subject, it very well could be. If what the editor is blatantly incorrect, then ignore this bullet, but, if it's not, an explanation should be given.
I actually went and reverted this edit to William Norman Ewer. The sermon that the IP inserted has no place in Wikipedia.
This edit was a revert to a good-faith edit on Auction sniping. The IP told why he removed the table. Arguments could be made both ways about whether the table should stay or go, but as it was before it was removed, was clearly against WP:EL.
As I had already commented on, the reverts discussed in this conversation certainly do not appear to be vandalism, but instead, edit-warring.
The edit-warring in the last bullet is the main thing that is likely to cause a request for rollback to fail. Had you had rollback then, it has to be assumed that you would have used it there (the same with all reverts with no explanation). Using rollback there would have been abuse of it. Due to this and your past history of edit-warring, I'm afraid that another request at this time likely wouldn't be successful. On the bright side, leaving that episode out, unless I missed something, overall, you have certainly improved a lot at vandalism reverts. I feel much more confident now than I did last time that you will get rollback one of these days. If you want to get another editor's opinion or request anyway, I will not feel offended at all, but I would suggest waiting a little longer and demonstrating that you would not use the tool in content disputes.
Not concerning rollback or reverts, but I am a little concerned about some of your speedy deletion tagging. Remember, WP:CSD criteria is intentionally very narrow. Anything that does not fit exactly what it says is likely not a speedy candidate and should be sent to WP:PROD or WP:AfD. Subjects do not have to establish notability to survive A7, just assert it.
Regarding this A7 tag on Blake Schlueter, the article certainly asserts notability. Playing in the NFL is certainly notable.
Regarding this A7 tag to Zoe Jane, the article is about a song, not a musical group, so A7 wouldn't apply. A9 deals with recordings; however, if the recording is by a musical group with an article, it is not a candidate. Since this song is by Staind (which is blue), it is not a candidate.
Regarding this G2 tag on Talk:Unicorn Kid, it is important to always check earlier revisions to make sure that you aren't tagging a vandalized version of an article (or talk page in this instance). Also, when dealing with talk pages with corresponding articles, I find that it is often better to just remove vandalism/tests and replace it with a talk header instead of requesting deletion. I've seen some admins delete them and others just place headers, so I guess that it is often just personal preference.
Regarding this A7 tag to Danish modern, it is about a type of furniture and not a person, an organization, or web content, so A7 doesn't apply.
I also noticed that several tags were placed very quickly after the author edited. Remember, you should wait at least 15 minutes after the authors last edit. Really, it is best to patrol the back of the backlog instead of the front. If there is any chance at all that an article could be made encyclopedic (even if it's poorly written or only one sentence), then it shouldn't be speedied. Rather, it should be improved if possible, or at least sent to PROD or AfD.
J.Delanoy blocked the range (72.249.64.0/18, see here for proof) for one week but the talk pages are unprotected. If you see an IP in this range vandalising, request that the page be protected since the IP range is already blocked. Thanks. Momo sanGespräch03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi was wondering why you marked my article `Baroon dollars' for deletion - Other community currencies are located throughout Wikipedia - then the rule must be the same for a new one. Who do I need to complain to?
--Darren Mitchell (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
Congrats on getting Rollback! Just a reminder, remember that it's only for blatantly unconstructive edits. If there are doubts, you should use one of the methods that allow you to leave an edit summary. You've been doing this well anyways, so I don't think that you'll have any problems. Again, congrats! Keep up the good work! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes14:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you customize the rollback message? Because I noticed on some of the Huggle users who revert, the only think linked is the vandal's username plus the vandal's talk page link. The test I just did on my userpage was different. It had "Reverted" linked. - Amaury (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways to, but I've never used them. You can find about them here. The only way I've ever done it is through Huggle, which does it automatically for you. Personally, what I do is use Rollback (ie the default edit summary) just for vandalism, and use Twinkle to give an edit summary. However, if you want to play with the scripts that allow edit summaries, have fun :) Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your application, and decided not to oppose it this time. Please be careful ... with your history, you will be watched closely by a lot of people. A small mistake that would be ignored for another editor is likely to have consequences for you.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true. Plus, if you (Eugene) start using Huggle, mistakes get very easy to make, even for the most experienced editors. Try to always err on the side of caution. If there's any doubt at all, try to leave an edit summary instead of rollbacking. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have just been granted rollback privileges, please be mindful of how you are using it, a user you reverted and warned for vandalism [19] ended up on my talk page confused and wondering what he had done wrong. All he did was overwrite a redirect to begin a legit article, not only do I see no reason to revert him in the first place, accusing him of vandalism was entirely uncalled for. Please be careful before you pull the trigger, we do not want to drive away good editors. EquendilTalk17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene, how many times is this going to happen before you learn to be more cautious and stop making unfounded vandalism accusations? This is far from the first time this has happened, I implore you once again to slow down and make sure an edit was vandalism before warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that one is bad. Calling someone a vandal when they are trying to build an article really goes against what Wikipedia is all about. Just guessing here, but looking at the edits, I'm guessing that you saw this edit which appears to be the cleaning out of loose references. I think that there are a few points to learn here: 1) Make sure to look at the entirety of the edits. Botanicleve made three straight edits before you reverted. Make sure to look at the overall work, not just one diff. 2) Try to figure out why someone would remove content when they do. Looking at that diff, it's pretty obvious what the editor was doing when taking into account the section that he is editing. 3) Double check your work. You gave Botanicleve a page blanking/removal of content warning. After you reverted, if you looked at your diff, you were actually the one who removed content. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like the edit took place actually before you were granted rollback. Just do try to be careful. You have improved a lot, just learn from this mistake and keep improving. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you reverse a page blanking read what you are restoring as you restored an attack page that I just speedied. Reading your talk page I can see that I'm not the only one raising concerns about the way you do VP. Please slow down and take more care. SpartazHumbug!18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand completely. I just sort of skimmed through it, but I guess I should have read more. Anyway, I apologize and will be more careful in the future. - Amaury (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an excuse, you have had enough warnings to slow down. If you don't learn the lesson I will remove rollback to deactivate your huggle. its not a tool for the unreflective. SpartazHumbug!18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will as soon as I can. I'm going to be on sporadically for the rest of the night and probably the rest of the week (family issues). I can't promise when it'll be, but I promise that I'll get to it as soon as I am able to devote enough time though. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally got through. There were a lot of edits, so I just glanced through most.
The edits you reverted in this revert to Talitha don't look like vandalism to me. The IP was turning it into a more proper disambig page. If you think that they removed too much, then you should discuss and perhaps reinsert what you believe should be included, but this would be a content dispute, not vandalism.
This revert on Miley Cyrus also doesn't appear to be vandalism to me. It is probably best left out, and, according to later comments, may be a copyvio, but not really vandalism.
It looks like you stepped into an edit war with this revert to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9). The article was later semi-protected so the IPs adding what you restored couldn't continue adding it. Always pay particular attention when reverting the removal of unsourced information.
As you probably figured out with this well intentioned undo to WP:AIV, you should make sure what you think you are reverting is what you really are reverting. Here, you thought the user was reporting himself, but that template actually shows: Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution.
Here, you reverted a page blanking of Maryland For Responsible Enforcement. When the creator of an article blanks the page, it is usually interpreted as a good-faith request for deletion. If there haven't been substantial edits by other editors, you can tag it as {{db-g7}} (author requests deletion). In this case it is likely that it would've been removed by the IP who later came to add to it though.
The main thing, when you are reverting something, make sure to read what you are reinserting. The restoration of the attack page that you were previously notified about is the perfect example. Anytime you are restoring unsourced content, use good judgment about whether it should be restored. You should always do this, but take special care not to reinsert unsourced info to a BLP, especially if it's negative. If there could be a good reason to remove content, then by reverting, you are likely entering into a content dispute, not reverting vandalism. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I probably won't get to it. In order to keep my sanity in check, I'm trying to take a semi-Wikibreak. Going through your diffs usually takes me a couple of hours (largely due to my slow Ineternet connection), and my goal is to spend no more than 30 minutes a day on Wikipedia. I can say that this revert, which was brought up on my talk page was a bad revert, but I'm sure that it was a mistake. Just take your time using Huggle, and you'll do fine. Any specific questions, always feel free to ask, but I really don't have the time to go through 400+ edits right now. I'm sorry. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene, don't you think you went a little overboard in this diff, giving an editor a level 4 warning when all they did was (randomly, sure) say "i am not a crook" on someone else's talkpage? This seems excessive to me, and I urge you to remove the warning (or I will) and to consider starting with level 1 for such a minor offense. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know how it happened. It should have been a "Message re." warning. I have my Huggle's warning system set to automatic. Anyway, I'll remove the warning. Thanks for the message. - Amaury (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in, but I happened to see this mentioned at AIV while I was checking up on something. I notice the user you warned had 2 other warnings that he blanked out, I am wondering if maybe Huggle "knows" this even though we don't see the warnings?(Level 4 would still be too high, but it was definitely not a first offense). Might be worth asking the people at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback. I use it, too, which is why I'm curious (nosy?).--Susan118 (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
he actually removed three warnings, my userpage once and talk twice, altho almost every other edit he has made to any page has been the same "not a crook" nonsense. This is quite possibly the most peculiar vandal I have come across. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is weird indeed. Nar, I think we're dealing with unexpiated guilt. Eugene, I don't use Huggle (I actually don't know what it is), all my warnings are manual, so I was not aware of this possibility--and from the sound of it, it has its drawbacks. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had to check the history - didn't even realize I had touched your page. It went something like this: Read diff -> Recognize stupidity -> press Q -> repeat. Suppose you've had a few of those moments... Quantumobserver (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean? I've never seen those on Huggle. Oh, wait! You just made that up, huh? Nice one! Ha ha! Thanks again. - Amaury (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had inserted a small mneumonic into the definition of Ion regarding differentiating Cations and Anions, owing to my Research Chemist friend and I having genuinely used this nmeumonic since college (20 years ago when it was suggested by a fellow student to the Lecturer during a GCSE Chemistry class) to remember the difference. Hence I thought this may be a useful note. It wasn't actually a 'test edit' nor 'vandalism' by the wiki definition, however I accept if you deem my justification here does not sway your decision to revert. Thanks for your feedback. Roopreqt (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jozal(talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I was nearly blocked because you and that other person ganged up on me! :( When did leaving a reply on someone's talk page become vandalism? Yet two warnings from you for doing that to someone else and then trying to explain to you? And the only reason I went to the talk page was to explain a massive misunderstanding in the first place! Would it be better to wreck everything? --86.45.207.249 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's true but who bothers looking through the history when you can just block me? :( This isn't my first experience of this and it is VERY infuriating and unconstructive. I've actually been blocked trying to explain past cases! I was expecting the same to happen again because every time I tried to explain I was being given a warning by you. But that's what always happening if you can block someone nobody is going to bother looking into it because nobody believes such a thing could happen but it does! Agh! --86.45.207.249 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I think you'll be fine. I'm not an admin, so I can't block you. Even if I were, I would give you a chance before making a decision. =) - Amaury (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am, thanks. Also, please leave my headings the way they are. I like subjects on my talk page formatted into the months. Thanks. - Amaury (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Eugene. I hope all is well. I just wanted to let you know that I hadn't forgotten about you, I just haven't had much time. In fact, I'm planning on taking a break from editing for a while. Between work, my side business, and spending time with friends & family, I don't really have enough time to be spending on here at the moment. If I can give up my compulsion of editing here, then hopefully I can relieve some stress :) I'll still log on daily, so if you have any specific questions, I will still be around to try and answer them though. Cheers and happy editing! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes20:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, the warning should have been a spam warning instead of a vandal warning. I guess vandalism could apply, but spam would have been more specific. DrewSmithWhat I've done01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh. Sorry. I didn't notice that after I reverted the IP address the first time that it started to insert URLs. Heh. - Amaury (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect me to do, Eugene? It is clear from the edits of User talk:Mytestid1980 that he is doing this deliberately, to vent out his personal frustrations and to spread rumours. Have you gone through the history of the article and seen what this user is up to? You are advising me in doing certain things but just look at what this user has done. He has again and again reverted the reverts made by me and by Hometech (talk). This user needs to be barred from editing as he is doing all possible things to spread rumours or atleast he should be given a stern warning (which will work only if he pays any heed to it). It seems that you can handle such situations, then why haven’t you yourself posted a message on the talkpage of User talk:Mytestid1980? Kesangh (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar at all with the subject, but, from a completely oblivious view, it looks like Mytestid1980 is probably pushing a POV. His/her content is unsourced and doesn't appear neutral, but doesn't appear to be vandalism to me. I would agree with Eugene here that it seems to be WP:BITEY starting out with a level 3 warning. What I would opt to do here is to explain to the user that the content needs sources to even be considered, but, even with reliable sources, needs to be written from a neutral point of view. If attempts for discussion fail, then I would say that dispute resolution might help here. I see that a thread has been posted to ANI about this, but I doubt that an admin will be willing to intervene at this point (at least with the role of an admin, possibly as an editor). No one has really explained anything to the editor, and, at least from an oblivious view, it looks like a content dispute. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes19:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doniago has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
This discussion is being continued from this subject.
Hello Eugene. I'm a little later getting back to you than I meant to be. Sorry about that. I did a very quick glance at your contribs, and what I saw looked good. Just judging from your talk page, the only thing that I really notice is that you really need to be careful about reverting someone just because they have previously been reverted. The original reverter could've made a mistake, the vandal could've changed and decided to make a good edit, or the revert may have been a good-faith revert and not a vandalism revert. If there is doubt that it is or isn't constructive, then it shouldn't be rolled back. I didn't see any of this since those posts on your talk page, so you've probably already gotten this part, so this may be no help at all. Anyway, just keep up the good work! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes22:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You requested speedy deletion of this article as patent nonsense. It is definitely not total nonsense, and I have accordingly declined the SD request. LadyofShalott02:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to this reversion, you reverted a good faith contribution as though it were vandalism with a rollback. Per WP:ROLLBACK, regardless of the tool that you use, rollback is for obvious vandalism only. What makes it worse is that the edit was correct and improved the article. Reverting something just because it is done by an IP is unacceptable, and you are warned that repeated errors of this nature will result in your removal of rollback, and your consequent inability to use Huggle. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note regarding another couple of your reversions re User:Zibi Fer I had asked a random contributor from tr-wiki to doublecheck some edits which looked like vandalism and they appeared ok. I have left the editor a note regarding editsummaries and references. But they seem to be good faith edits although looking like vandalism. It does need monitoring though. Agathoclea (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern, Fritz. Just so you know, I didn't revert it just because. I checked previous revisions and saw another user had reverted the IP's edits, so I thought that it was vandalism. Just wanted to clear it up that I didn't do it just because it was an IP address. My sincere apologies, though. - Amaury (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm examining that reversion as well - base your judgement on the edit up for reversion, not the contributor's history, and if you're not sure it is vandalism, it clearly isn't obvious vandalism. Take care, and best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks...
...for this one (and you did it once more, I see). Someone keeps adding those links to a bunch of different articles and I'm having a hell of a time keeping them out. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this one. Good thing you reverted 'cause the user had it wrong. I'm not massive...I'm just a buck-fifty. See ya 'round Tiderolls01:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing my own message to Sandstein to resolve the problem with the Federer page, which has now been rectified why am I now being threatened with a last warning?? Joshuaselig (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the content because it was all sorta advertisementy. Also it was sourced incorrectly, and just all around poorly done. I am reverting it back.
71.32.247.78 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new editor for Wikipedia, and I am quickly learning how things go. I thought that by deleting all of the content of this page, then Wikipedia would simply delete it from its site. This page should be completely deleted. Thank you for your time. Street123 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Street123[reply]
There is something wrong with the article, you are currently the third editor to have come up and warn me. That article needs personalized help. It is suffering from a state of factual error. My comment is to warn future readers and perhaps make one or two of them be interested in fixing it. Thank you. Talk toMagibon16:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop moving them to the names that Dynasty Warriors had, these articles are not about the battles in the games, these are articles about battles that actually happened in history. _dk (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reverts to my talk page. I believe an associated IP address also made some nazi-related "additions" to my user page. Thinking of taking it to Admin noticeboards. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene regarding my editing of the page about Jeremy Browne. If you look you will see that all i have ever done is add fully referenced material, and completed quotes only half posted to put Jeremy in a bad light. My posts are longer, include all of the quotes desired by oldtauntonian, an adversary of Browne's, but in full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.34.40 (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xzz8sh
So, Mr. Krabs, are you going to respond to my post about the user page for User:Xzz8sh or not? Seems to be pretty obvious violation of WP:UP#NOT, advertising or promotion of a business or organization unrelated to Wikipedia (such as purely commercial sites or referral links) . 98.248.32.178 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is "sort of an attack", but not much of one. I probably wouldn't have left a level-4 warning over it, but it wasn't wrong to do so, either. His problems with adding original research, edit-warring, and playing games with warnings are going to get him blocked quite quickly if he doesn't straighten out. As for leaving admins warnings ... not usually a good idea, but I've done it before and probably will again. Admins are just editors. Also, I'm not an admin ... just an editor with a lot of edits.—Kww(talk) 20:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More have come back up to June 3rd. By the way, shouldn't it say Zhang He and not Eugene Krabs? On some of the before edits the name changed to my new, but on some it didn't. - Zhang He (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, hopefully it'll get straightened out completely before long. AFAIK, it should change your name in the contributions and history, but not edit summaries, signatures, and whatnot. Was it in the edit summaries that you noticed it? Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes00:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Zhang, thanks for your welcome message, but it wasn't needed. If you'd checked my edit history you'd notice I've been editing for several months and am quite familiar with the editing procedures here on Wikipedia. But your reversion of the page leaves me baffled. Can you kindly explain why you believe my edit was a "test", as I attempted to provided a source for the "dubious" statement? If this was a mistake on your part, can you try to actually check edits next time before you revert them? Thanks!--Eightofnine (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
This edit didn't even approach vandalism: the editor simply wanted to make sure the infobox had displayed completely before the references began. Your warning was unnecessary as well. I can tell that you are using Huggle to scan new edits, but I think you are going a bit fast: this edit was vandalism because the editor was trying to cover up a copyright violation by uploading the image through Flickr, and you gave him a spam warning. It's pretty obvious that you didn't take the time to examine the edit and its context so that you could act appropriately.—Kww(talk) 03:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you got a new name. That's so exciting! Thanks for backing me up here--it was a judgment call, and that IP is placing those reviews all over the place. I'm going to ask some other editors who know their music (business) for advice also. Later, Drmies (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new user Pk7311 now doing the same things that Syed9090 did before he got banned. Can it be somehow confirmed that these two accounts belong to the same person?Hamza[ talk ]07:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this and this are representative of how you use Huggle, it might be wise that you stop doing so. Blindly reverting other editors and slapping them with warnings when they are attempting to raise a concern, even if they are doing so in a misguided manner, only adds fuel to the fire. Please be more careful. --auburnpilottalk02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is with you reverting concerned talk by the subject of a BLP, Jay Brannan? BLP is very serious, and censoring the subject of one who has concerns about it is quite astounding. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I must agree. This was not a good use of rollback. Why is it, exactly, that you did that? →javértstargaze09:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't know what Huggle is, and didn't click the diff links. Well, between what you did, and Beeblebrox stepping on an edit by accident and then not reverting it on purpose, Jay Brannan thinks he's not even allowed to discuss the article and has gone away mad. -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Users and IP addresses are allowed to add or remove content from their user page and/or talk page unless it's inappropriate. - Zhang He (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zhang He is right that the editors (IP or registered) are allowed to test on their own pages; however, KypDurron1's edit was far from vandalism. It is obvious that his intentions were good, so the warning really was inappropriate. A note explaining why you reverted would be great, but not a {{uw-vand4}}. Remember vandalism is only for bad-faith edits, not incorrect good-faith edits. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question as to why removing invisible text placed underneath a redirect like this is considered vandalism. I would also like to know why this is considered vandalism, which you also reported in the vandalism report. KypDurron1 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a heads-up: I have declined the vandalism report, since there was obviously no malice on the part of KypDurron1. I will also ask Zhang He to please exercise more care in making vandalism reports. I would also recommend trying to communicate directly with editors rather than relying on templates -- you can get better results that way. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely attack page
What makes you say this [23] is nonsense? It looks to me like the user page probably is an attack. The user's only contributions to Wikipedia is this user page, which certainly makes me think this is probably an attack against the individual, not the real Chris Ryan's user page. -- AvatarMN (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why revert at all if you're not sure? And when the user comes to your talk page to alert you, why remove that and edit comment so surely that it's nonsense? Not only is it likely that the user page is an attack becuase the user has only edited the page, but the page contained a line about how the subject "identifies as conservative even though his girlfriend (then it names her!) had to get an abortion twice in the seventh grade".[24] That's not something someone writes about themself. You seem to be very careless at reverting, with Huggle or not. -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have improved a lot, but I agree with AvatarMN here. The original revert wasn't vandalism. Then removing his note on your talk page was in poor form. He appears to be concerned for the subject of this "article". Giving him a little help and explaining why you reverted would have helped more than removing the post as "nonsense". For the past couple of weeks, it does seem that you have been making quite a few of mistakes. You really do need to be more careful. If you can't explain why you reverted when the editor asks, then you shouldn't have reverted to begin with. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be performing all edits as minor edits, and frequently the editos are not minor. Please take more care. Perhaps you should adjust your preferences to make all edits not minor by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian of the Day
Congratulations, Zhang He! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 20, 2009! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week! If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|August 20, 2009}} to your userpage.
Hi...how was that vandalism??? I fixed it so it wasn't offensive to Danteferno, and you reverted it on The Black Dahlia Murder's talk page. cheese (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. It's now in the history and people will be able to see it if they go through the history. You cannot let your anger get the best of you. Please continue editing, but be polite from now on. I'll be watching you for the rest of the day, and if I see any more yelling and/or personal attacks, I will report you. Thanks! Happy editing! - Zhang He (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. :) If you ever see edits on juvenile-themed films like the ones that "CD Drive" character tried to perpetuate, it's likely this idiot right here. He's a hard-banned user on a dynamic IP and one of the biggest pains I've ever dealt with in nearly seven years of off-and-on editing. The latest sock is permanently blocked. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Need all the help we can get regarding this guy. I can't think of any single vandal who has sucked up so much valuable volunteer time as he. He's pretty easy to spot now that you know what to look for. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert
Hi, yeah I actually forgot to explain that in the Edit Summary... the User is a colleague of mine, we're translating this content into Arabic Language, and they put this content in their User Page following Instructions I wrote in my home wiki because they're new to wikipedia,, and I have put the content I removed in here, because that's the pleace where they were meant to be at.. and I have emailed them with these changes.. I'll revert it back to my edit, Please Leave it, The User Knows of it.. Sorry for the misunderstanding.. Koraiem (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have disabled your access to the rollback tool. This was a blatantly inappropriate way to use it. Note that there are no exceptions to WP:3RR (even if you think you are right, which I think in this instance is not necessarily the case). You are free to reapply for it at later date when you have reread the appropriate guidelines for its usage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to pile on here, but could you also read WP:BLANKING. As Abce2 says below, editors are perfectly entitled to remove comments and warnings from their talk pages, and they should not be restored. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to reply earlier a little after I woke up around 8:00am. Anyway, I was reverting the IP address because it appeared to me that it was vandalizing pages, which might be true or partly true, but looking at the history of Category:X1, it looks like he/she was also being reverted by another user; that's when I stepped in and figured that if he/she was vandalizing that page, then most likely his/her other edits were vandalism, but I could be very well wrong. And yes, I understand that users and/or IP addresses have the right to remove warnings and such from their talk pages, which indicates that they have read it, but to me it looked like he/she was trying to hide his/her warnings so he/she wouldn't get trouble (this happened a while ago with another user/IP address, and it turned out to be true), and he/she wasn't just removing them, he/she was using "Undo" to revert them. So there's the story. Whether you believe me or not is up to you. If you need any other details and such, let me know. Oh, and I'm not even going to bother putting up an unblock template. It's only 24 hours, and I've gotten blocked before, as you can see, but as you also can see, I have improved tremendously since February. - Zhang He (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just got your email. I did watchlist this page, but somehow it slipped through. A few points:
Anti-vandalism work here is much needed and appreciated. Thanks for all your work.
3RR should not be broken. In this case I would not describe the edits as "obvious vandalism" so even the exception listed on WP:3RR does not apply.
Warnings and comments on user talk pages should not be restored for any reason. It doesn't matter if you think they are trying to hide them. Yes, it makes it a little more difficult for other editors because they have to look through the history, but that's the situation we're in.
Why didn't you post a request on WP:AIV after the level-4 warning? You will normally get a quick response from admins there.
I was careful to warn you about 3RR rule before blocking you. Why did you not stop then? You continued to revert at least twice after I posted the warning, which I can't understand.
If you could go back to using the undo button for a couple of weeks I will be happy to consider reapplying rollback, assuming that all is well.
I didn't notice your warning until after those two edits. And sure, I would be willing to. I have Twinkle. Would it be okay to use that? - Zhang He (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't want to take any more of your privileges away and I want to believe that you'll learn from this. So go ahead, but I'll keep an eye on your edits for a few days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't argue for other people's weaknesses. Don't argue for your own. When you make a mistake, admit it, correct it, and learn from it / immediately." -Stephen Covey
Hello. Sorry I missed your email before. You made a mistake, it happens. What's done is done. The important thing now is that you learn for it. In this case, I hope you learn that you should never just "step in" when you see an editor being reverted. I had noticed that this had been an on-going mistake that you make, even commenting on it in one of our old review sessions (next to last block of text). I'd also noticed that in most, if not all, of your latest mistakes, another editor had previously reverted and warned the editor.
Remember, everyone makes mistakes. If someone else makes a mistake and you revert based on the original revert, then you are also making a mistake. When this happens, instead of helping, you are just compounding the mistake. Always use your own judgment. If you ever have to think whether or not an edit should be rolled back, then it shouldn't be. If you have to think, then, if you revert, an explanation can and should be given. If the edit does not fit the intentionally strict definition of WP:VANDALISM, then you are in a content dispute. Again, mistakes happen. Just learn from this mistake and become a better editor for it. Also remember, when you get sleepy, go to bed ;) When using Huggle, it's very easy for a small mistake to become a huge one. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps no automation?
I see that you got rollback yanked, which is a shame, because even though I've criticized you a few times, I think you mean well. My suggestion is that you stop using the Huggles, Twinkles, and rollbacks. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kww&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1 and notice how high my percentage of reversions is, but that I rarely hit the "rollback" button, and never use automated tools. I take the time to read every edit I revert, and understand what it is I'm doing to the article. It takes a little longer, and things don't seem to go as fast, but I don't make as many mistakes that way, I don't get blocked, and, if I get resistance, I'm able to explain why I reverted and recruit help. In the long run things go more smoothly and quickly. The main time I use rollback is for the truly, truly, obvious, like adding obscenities to articles.—Kww(talk) 12:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
October
Incorrect unconstructive marking
In August you thought I was making unconstructive edits to a page. This was my own former talk page. I had just undergone a name change moving away from my real name and was ensuring that the page was deleted. Thanks for ensuring that future edits are actually unconstructive before marking them as such. Naipicnirp (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not "bringing it back up"- I had just noticed your false accusation and wanted to politely inform you of your error. Perhaps an apology or just viewing it as a reminder would have been more appropriate versus dismissing it as you did. Thanks again for ensuring you are well informed before making edits\accusations.Naipicnirp (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About your rollback
Hi Zhang He, in response to your comments on my talk page. If you'd like to get rollback back I'd like to see two weeks of work on Recent Changes patrol using the undo button. If this is the work you are most interested in doing, then this shouldn't be too much to ask. It is only one extra step after all, and most reverts will require an informative edit summary anyway. I have been checking your contributions lately, and in the past two weeks you have done very little except making edits to your user space. This doesn't give me much to go on. I'd like to point out that there are dozens of other areas in which you could help Wikipedia, and you may find some of these more rewarding than just reverting vandalism. Let me know if you want any ideas! If you are not happy with my decision regarding the rollback, you are of course free to make a request at WP:RFR. Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zhang, I've been looking at your contributions and I admire your hard work and enthusiasm. That said, there have still been a fair few mistakes and this is reflected in the comments on your talk page. I wouldn't feel comfortable about handing back rollback just yet, but you're free to carry on using twinkle and continuing to improve your experience. Don't worry, no one is perfect and it seems you are ready to learn from your mistakes and take criticism constructively. I do have a few other ideas you might be interested in:
Reviewing articles for creation. These are articles submitted by unregistered users and need to be reviewed by an experienced editor. Take a look at the instructions and then get started!
I'm following Wikipedia guidelines. Guidelines states that any trivia sections must be removed. Any useful info can be put under a different title. (For example, production). So please don't mark any correct edits as "vandalism"
If you look at the warning I gave you, it's a "Page blanking, removal of content" warning, not a "Vandalism" warning. However, I understand. Thank you for contacting me. - Zhang He (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of unsourced material.
If you look here, I think you'll find that this paragraph was flagged as needing citation, because otherwise it's just WP:SYNTHESIS. User:Schrandit couldn't find a citation, so he changed the specific reference to WP:WEASEL words. However, it's still WP:SYNTHESIS, as there are no citations for any groups using these arguments.
Hi, you reverted my recent edits to the Varun Gandhi page, and marked them as vandalism. I'd like to assure you they're anything but vandalism. I'm new to editing pages, so didn't leave comments. Basically, I had removed some out of date content and some redundant stuff. Moreover, I had also removed content who's sources seemed very weak - youtube, and op-ed columns from newspapers. One real news story that cited unnamed unconfirmed stories (seemed more of a rumor being printed) was also removed, as was the content it was being cited for. All rumors, no substantiation.
I'm happy to discuss these in detail, or re-submit changes with comments. What's the best way?
Thank you. 122.162.0.161 (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its clear that you do not know how to use the tools you have been given I suggest that you review how and when to use them before you again erroneously revert GF edits as vandalism and have those tools removed. 172.162.117.13 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You corrected your mistake while I was messaging you, I would suggest that you take more time and care in your edits - then you and others would have less opportunity to make mistakes. Take care. 172.162.117.13 (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for stating the obvious. I understand that it was a mistake, corrected after I had already seen the edit and came to this page, its one that could have been avoided with more diligence. Hardyplants (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you acknowledge it's a mistake, why bother with the "take more time and care with your edits"? That's completely unnecessary. Everyone makes mistakes. This is Wikipedia, not a neurosurgical procedure. OhNoitsJamieTalk21:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""take more time and care with your edits"? That's completely unnecessary." The point seems clear to me, I apoligize if I am not communication my point well. If he takes more time and pays more attention to what he is reverting and calling vandalism (diligence), he would most likely not make those types of edit mistakes. Also if he had made a simlpe staement like "I messed up and corrected it, sorry" - instead of "you clearly don't check the history of articles to see if it was a mistake" this specific incident would have been resolved. Every one makes mistakes, hopefully we learn from them and make any corrections were we can. Hardyplants (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Laurel academy. I do not think that Laurel academy fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because CSD A7 does not apply to schools. I request that you consider not re-tagging Laurel academy for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD.Favonian (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mission accomplished then :) You are quite right about this article not deserving to live (witness the fact that I've PRODed it), but like Homer Simpson said about an organization somewhat bigger that Wikipedia: "You guys have more crazy rules than Blockbuster Video." Favonian (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparition's review
I finally finished going through them. I saw a few that I think were questionable, but most of your reverts looked fine to me.
This revert to 2009 ATP World Tour Finals wasn't very good. You didn't mark it as vandalism, so no huge deal, but the edit that you reverted fixed duplication of sources and made it more efficient, it didn't remove content.
This revert to Random-access memory was a mistake, though an easy one to make. The reason the IP removed the section was because the section was duplicated, which was not possible to see using just the diff.
This revert to Same-sex marriage and the family wasn't very good IMHO. Usually when an editor quotes policies, it's a good-faith edit, and at a quick glance, it appears that the reasoning was sound.
This revert to America Ferrera actually reintroduced vandalism. The IP didn't get it all, but did try. The edit claimed that America was in a relationship in 1962, when she wasn't born until 1984. Really, if unsourced content is removed from a BLP, there should be a very good reason to reintroduce it without adding a source.
I have reverted this edit; the tag is wrong for a user page, and blanking ones own talk page (without losing the history) is allowable and common practice. I42 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it must not have. An administrator would have declined the speedy deletion if it were notable, but the administrator that deleted it obviously didn't think it was notable, so it was deleted. - Zhang He (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zhang He, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Thug Motivation 103 - a page you tagged - because: Article has content. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy13:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to move that text but saw the organization of the article did not allow me to do so. Afterward, I moved it back to where it was.
All right, no harm done. That's what "level 1 warnings" are for. :) They're not really warnings, actually, they're more of a "just letting you know" thing. :) - Zhang He (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zhang He, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Devendra Singh Kaswa - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Skomorokh, barbarian 13:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ignore your recent spate of idiocy directed at me and give you some sage advice:
Articles made by administrators are rarely vandalism. Do not tag them. The edit I made to Wale mark is a common gastroenterologic aphorism that I was using in order to guide making an article.
Rolling back edits made by administrators to your talk page as vandalism [26] is decidedly poor judgment.
Do not tag articles for speedy deletion within 5 seconds of creation when you do not understand the content, particularly when the page you tagged was made by the person who deleted the previous three CSD's!
Templating administrators with automated vandalism warnings is a bad idea, particularly since the person you are templating can easily remove your TWINKLE access.
And how was I supposed to know you were an administrator (if you really are one)? There was no indication that you were one. Real administrators never have red names and don't create articles with gibberish. - Zhang He (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now. Don't just tag articles seconds after they are made and look at the contribution history of the users who made articles before you tag the article. Don't rollback messages to your talk page and accuse the person who wrote it of vandalism. If you template the regulars, they get upset. It's pretty simple. -- Samir08:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few observations from an impartial editor:
Zhang He's tagging was too quick, but your first version of this article did meet speedy deletion criteria. (Although perhaps {{db-nocontext}} would have been preferable to {{db-vandalism}}.)
I think it is unreasonable to expect new page patrollers to examine the contributions history of the authors of articles they review. As a long-time editor, you should know better than to create articles such as this. A new editor who created this article would receive the same treatment. Why should the rules be different for yourself?
Regardless of whether the tagging was appropriate or not, you should not have removed the tag from your own article. This is written in stone and you especially should know this. Therefore I find that the warning for this was appropriate.
I am disappointed that you have tried to use your administator status to pull rank on this editor. In this situation, you are both editors and your status gives you no additional authority. Please try to avoid this in future.
Yes, it was unwise to remove talk page comments as "vandalism" (but I see that Samir has also reverted the warnings from Zhang He without response as well).
Overall, I think that although Zhang He is inexperienced and still learning, this episode reflects worse on Samir who, as an experienced editor, should have handled it better and could also assumed a little more good faith towards this editor. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New page patrollers should not be putting incorrect tags ones on articles, especially on articles that are made within seconds (note that this was incorrectly tagged as G3). The article was made and seconds later, a CSD tag comes up when I'm trying to edit. Then I'm hit with a test template. Then I come to this talk page to talk about it, and my edits are inappropriately reverted as vandalism (see the edit summaries -- note there is a difference between TWINKLE reverting an edit as vandalism, and removing read notes). The behaviour was ridiculous to anyone, be they IP, registered editor, administrator, whatever, and you can understand why I'm angry about it. This needs to be addressed (take a look at the slough of warnings of inappropriate taggings on this page from this month alone)
It is absolutely expected that new page patrollers should review both the content, and the contributor of articles that are tagged -- period. This behaviour of strolling by and tagging articles in a second without appropriate review is practiced willy-nilly across the wiki, and good faith contributors without the familiarity to know how to deal with it go by the wayside because of these supposedly well-meaning new page patrollers. Even if the article looks junky, let it go for a little bit in any circumstance to see if further edits are being made (I was edit conflicted and was adding more to the article). And anyone can remove CSD tags from any article with justification; that is certainly not set in stone as you claim. -- Samir12:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, wrong, wrong! This assertion about removing CSD tags is alarming coming from an admin! Look at WP:SPEEDY: the text "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it" is even emphasised in bold. I42 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No heading
hi thanks for the greeting i am new at this and i am trying to create this page i have it started but it looks nothing like a regular wikipedia page please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldogfire (talk • contribs)
oops sorry i forgot to sign that last one but um how do i make the little side bar thing with the picture and quick information Ldogfire 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldogfire (talk • contribs)
sorry i dd not do it the first time --Ldogfire 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldogfire (talk • contribs)
No harm done. To answer your question, do you mean something like this? Also, if you want to get help from someone else besides me to get other points of view, simply follow what your welcome message says to do if you need help, which is to place a {{helpme}} template on your talk page. - Zhang He (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
um i have sent u a couple messages i dont kow if ur busy but i was hoping for a response --Ldogfire 15:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldogfire (talk • contribs)
Hello Zhang He, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Vattapalli Matom) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW(Talk)04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Zhang He.
Your words 'Unsourced' and 'adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Talk:2009 flu pandemic by country' - are mistake. There was citing and citing of reliable source (Russian Information Agency). You deleted info. Then I wrote at yours page and you deleted my question. I think it is not constructive.
Wikipedia administrators helped me to inform article writers and information about swine flu in Russia was added to article with the same link.
Please be calm and polite by your own principles next time. And do really 'If you post here, I'll reply here and leave you a message informing you of my reply'. And please give some time to edit before deleting.
I am also concerned about the way you reverted a message to your talk page without bothering to reply to it and with a bizarre edit summary. You must take responsibility for your actions and that includes answering queries about your edits. With the number of comments building up here, I suggest that it might be time to give vandalism patrol and twinkle a rest for the moment and try something else. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted an edit and dismissed as vandalism where I corrected the Time in Argentina article. Prior to quickly dismissing edits as vandalism, in the future, I suggest you show good faith and contact the editor should you have any doubts. In any case, I have corrected your revert to reflect that Argentina no longer observes DST. The paragraph that states which provinces observe DST has been removed since it is no longer relevant (as all provinces no longer observe DST). 68.199.153.220 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a comment you left on my talk page, correcting something that is false (which I did) is NOT vandalism. However, placing false information (like you did) IS vandalism. A simple Google search would have shown that my edit was correct. Look at the comments on your page. Think carefully before you revert and make edits, and before threatening editors with blocks (for making accurate corrections, no less), reflect on your own actions. You may be the one that may be facing a block shortly. 68.199.153.220 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, link to that reliable Google source in the article, then. As I previously stated, my edits are not vandalism, and, actually, neither are yours. Look at the warning I gave you October 17th. Does it say anything about vandalism? No, it doesn't. That's because it's a Page blanking, removal of content warning, not a Vandalism warning. Anyway, like I was saying, neither of us are vandals. We're both of editing that article out of good faith, so please think before accusing someone of vandalism. Have I accused you? No. So don't accuse me. - Zhang He (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best step here would be for everyone to just calm down and have some WP:TEA. It seems that vandalism was accused from both sides, seen here and here, but that's really not important. We're all here to improve WP, so let's do so. Instead of arguing, let's find a solution. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That means that we report what reliable sources say, not necessarily what is true, which at times may sound stupid, but really is an important aspect to Wikipedia. So, we need a reliable source to confirm this, so here one is. Hopefully, this will solve the problem.
As far for advice for the future:
I would encourage Zhang He to do a quick Google search in cases like this to see if it's true, or, instead of using a template, politely ask if they can provide a source. Multi-level templates generally do at least insinuate vandalism, even if they do not come out and say it.
To 68.199.153.220, I know it's it frustrating when you know what you put is true but you get reverted, but please try to remain calm. When someone replaces sourced information with unsourced that contradicts the original, it can look suspicious. This would be true for anyone doing it, be it you, me, or User:Example. So, when replacing sourced content, you really should offer a new source to replace the outdated source.
First of all, thank you to Apparition. If you noticed, I had already sourced the article prior to these comments. In any case, the issue here is that there is a pervasive problem on Wikipedia, which I am set to point out, that a hostile environment has been created for anonymous editors. Many editors simply revert edits from anonymous users without actually looking at the content, a basic violation of the good faith principle on which Wikipedia is built. In Zhang He's case, looking at his comment page, it seems that Zhang He is having issues with both anonymous and registered editors, and I encourage him to reflect on his own actions. I also agree with one of the comments above that Zhang He maybe should consider giving Twinkle and revert editing a break. With regards to your comment about Googling and posting notes on the users talk page, that is exactly the suggestion I have to all revert editors.
Regarding your comment about Verifiability (and I admit that Zhang He's talk page is not necessarily the best place to discuss this), it is correct up to a point. I can find sources that say that the Earth is flat, the Sun rises in the South, and 1 + 1 = 3. Wikipedia already recognizes that sources that reflect fringe theories and/or opinions do not hold up to the Verifiability standard, in part because they are not generally held beliefs but most importantly, in the examples I showed, because they are so blatantly false. The purpose of the Verifiability standard and where it works best is when an absolute truth does not exist or is unknown and in cases where legitimate debate exists. In cases where a truth standard would be too rigid and would therefore prohibit inclusion of important but not necessarily proven details (such as an article about a historical event where not all the facts are necessarily known but legitimate beliefs exist), the Verifiability standard is correct. However, when an issue is virtually uncontroversial and rises to a level of true/false, I believe the Verifiability standard begins to fall apart. The Earth is a sphere, the Sun rises in the East, 1 + 1 = 2, and Argentina does not observe DST, no matter what other sources someone may find to the contrary.68.199.153.220 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that many recent change patrollers do not do enough due diligence when reverting. As far as I'm concerned, calling someone a vandal is the worst thing anyone can call a good-faith editor. I try to always do a quick search for anything that I'm not 100% sure is false before reverting (unless it's to a BLP), but I'm sure that in my time, I have probably made mistakes like this too. I disagree wholeheartedly with many editors' method of "see a change that s/he is not sure of, revert, and warn" instead of my preferred "see a change that s/he is not sure of, research it, then if not confirmed a) leave a personal message via talk page or at least edit summary or b) revert, and warn if necessary". With that being said, without our recent change patrollers, Wikipedia would be in a world of hurt without them as they all do a vital service. So, educating them in better methods is what we really need to do. Im my experience, if I yell at someone and chastise them, then they usually just get defensive and angry and, no matter how good of points I made, they don't listen or retain any of it. That's why I think that you'd be a lot more successful if you left calmer and more polite messages. I think it'd be easier to stop the hostility with kindness that it would be with hostility in return :)
I didn't notice that you had added a source, I apologize about that. I gotta say, I would be interested in seeing reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that claim that the Earth is flat, the Sun rises in the South, and 1 + 1 = 3 :) Despite that, the WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE should easily dismiss them. If something is absolutely true, then finding sources to back it up should not be a problem. It would not take long at all to find overwhelming sources that state the Earth is a sphere, the Sun rises in the East, 1 + 1 = 2, just as it took me about 30 seconds to find a source for this instance. I agree that things that are fact or are widely accepted as fact and are uncontroversial do not often need a source. However, here, despite it being true, the material apparently was somewhat controversial since a couple of people challenged it. Per WP:BURDEN, any material challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. WP:V is a policy and not a guideline, so unless there is a very good reason to ignore it, we really should stand by it. It is derived from the first part of our 5 pillars, so it is just as important to follow as any rule we have. Cheers! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have reverted two edits in Wizards of Waverly Place:
(Reverted 2 edits by 77.58.193.10 identified as vandalism to last revision by CNGLITCHINFO. (TW)). May I ask you why? User 77.58.193.10 has actually corrected the "release table" correctly. FFall1986 (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you reverted my November edit at User talk:75.189.248.126. Maybe you're in a different time zone, but I'd imagine the revision history of Richard Feynman is the same the world over. Either way, it was pretty unnecessary and everyone's time could be better spent reverting vandal edits and/or constructive editing. --Technopat (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you really shouldn't be changing other people's headings like that. Some could get upset over it, especially since it actually is November by UTC, which is what we use (look at date in the signatures). If you get confused with the time zone differences (like I do sometimes), if you go to "my preferences", then to "Gadgets", under "User interface gadgets", the 2nd option is to put a small clock in the top right-hand corner that shows what the UTC time currently is. I have this turned on (I have my time zone set to Central), so I know when the new Wikipedia day/month begins :) Cheers! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes03:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
November
Apparition's comments
This discussion is being continued from this subject.
I began to go through your contribs like I said I would, and one thing quickly came to my eye (besides the CSDs). It was the revert of this request for help and this "editing test" warning. It appears that we have a BLP who is being disparaged on Wikipedia and was trying to get help to stop it. Please understand, Wikipedia can have real-life consequences and do damage to living people who are subjects of articles. In a Google search for his name, 2 of the top 6 hits are to Wikipedia, so, people looking for him are very likely to see the articles. Anytime a BLP requests help like that, we should do our best to, not accuse them of testing (which he obviously wasn't doing). If you look at Thejpmshow 's contribs, it's pretty obvious that User:Ron Travolta has a point. I'd encourage you not to turn away someone requesting help, especially in cases like that. Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined the speedy deletion nomination of Ecuador maize varieties as it does not fit the criteria of being an organisation or a company which is not notable. It appears to me to be an article about the varieties of maize available in Ecuador. I have suggested to the author that they add more references and continue to work on the article. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You tagged this as "patent nonsense" which it was not. Bad formatting and poor writing do not make an article nonsense. Looking through your talk archives it is clear this is an ongoing problem. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion carefully if you plan to continue tagging articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To one of your other comments: I am getting tired of people judging me based on old discussion. I take judging like that as an insult, so please do not judge me based on old discussions. Thanks! - Zhang He (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, sir. You have had many previous notices posted here indicating that speedy deletion nominations made by you are faulty, and yet apparently have not learned from these mistakes. I urge you again to familiarize yourself with the criteria for speedy deletion to avoid such errors in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine if you want me to familiarize myself with criteria for speedy deletion, but all I'm asking is to not be judged based on past discussions. - Zhang He (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking in circles. You have demonstrated a pattern of a long term problem of misunderstanding CSD. If it was only one bad tagging I wouldn't be so concerned about it, but even as we've had this conversation yet another obviously flawed CSD nom of yours has been brought up below, so it not just your past actions, it's them combined with your actions right now that demonstrate that you do not understand how to properly interpret csd. You seemed more concerned with formatting your talk page (including a light refactor of my initial remark) and with getting rollback, like it's a prize to be earned. You need to focus more on the reasons behind the policies instead of just blindly attempting to revert or delete anything that does not satisfy your personal standards. If we could just delete anything that we, as individuals, think does not belong here, I would wipe out half of Wikipedia myself, but that's just not how it works. We have specific standards for what may and may not be speedy deleted, and continuing to apply the tags improperly wastes the time of administrators and other users who patrol speedy deletion nominations. You may want to consider adoption so that you can receive one-on-one mentoring from a more experienced user. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another administrator already informed me of that, and he/she was nicer about it. Would you mind just leaving me alone for now? I need some time to cool off before I end up yelling at you or something and end up getting blocked. - Zhang He (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last time you reviewed my contributions was October 21st. How have my edits been since October 22nd? You can reply either here or on my talk page, but if you reply on my talk page please make a new section instead of editing the "About your rollback" section from October, as it's been archived along with the rest of the October 2009 discussions. - Zhang He (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not very well, considering the number of comments on this page ;) I'm certainly not giving your rollback yet, and could you please stop asking me? I'll look in from time to time. You have been advised to stop new page patrol because you seem to have so much trouble interpreting the speedy deletion criteria. I think I would agree with this. The criteria are very strict and you need to be sure that you understand them before tagging new pages. Perhaps you should try something else, and come back to it in a few months? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I feel that you still have trouble determining what is vandalism and what isn't, as evidenced by your response above on Japan Dance Delight. ArcAngel (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Long story... I saw this edit by that anon guy again, more ranting here and there, you come to take it out, I go to your userpage, and I'm thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, this is Eugene Krabs!" Apparently we're both "formerly-known-as" guys. I remember you, last time I saw you was back when I was G2sai. Your anti-vandal work has increased and improved tenfold. Best of luck and good fortune to you always, ♠The Ace of Spades(talk)02:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm honored. You're very welcome. Currently, I'm trying to get rollback rights back. See the September archive if you would like to know more. - Zhang He (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy birthday!
Apparition11 has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
If you read the intro of this article, it would be clear why your redirect was in error:
The holiday is commonly printed as Veteran's Day or Veterans' Day in calendars and advertisements. While these spellings are grammatically acceptable, the United States government has declared that the attributive (no apostrophe) rather than the possessive case is the official spelling.
As explanation, consider the distinction to be a question of emphasis. Using the possessive, it is a day that *belongs* to veterans. Without it, it is a day *for* veterans (in this case, honoring them). Much like you would call it "Earth Day" instead of "Earth's Day". --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not making any sense at all. If you're honoring veterans, then yes, it should be Veterans' day. You agree that Your friends' cars is correct over Your friends cars, yes? - Zhang He (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my analogy to Earth Day? I agree 100% with your example on the use of the possessive, but only when the possessive is appropriate. Again, try thinking about it like Earth Day. Earth Day, despite "honoring" the Earth, doesn't have a possessive because it doesn't belong to the Earth, it's to celebrate the Earth. Rewritten in a more verbose form, "Earth Day" would be rendered as "Day to Honor/Celebrate the Earth". Similarly, Veterans Day doesn't belong to veterans, it honors them. The long form would be "Day to Honor/Celebrate the Veterans". In the long form (which has identical meaning), it's clear that you don't need an apostrophe, correct? Although less obvious, the same rule is being applied in the short form. It's a very fine distinction in this case, and it's easy to see how you would be confused. I'm not blaming you for misunderstanding, please don't take this as a personal attack. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I get it somewhat. So I guess the reason Your friends' cars, The boys' locker room, The girls' locker room, etc are correct is because it belongs to them? - Zhang He (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Those are all cases where you are indicating ownership. In the case of the holiday, it's not "owned", so it shouldn't have an apostrophe. Of course, this is all a moot point since the holiday's name was assigned by the U.S. government, but at least I can explain why they weren't being complete morons when they gave it that name. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A different rule, and a different mindset, is being applied there. The Roman Catholic church "gives" days to each saint, so from the church's perspective, the day belongs to Saint Valentine. And in practice, most people celebrating the day aren't honoring Saint Valentine, they are trying to gain the blessing of his day (I know, really subtle distinction there). That said, there are a number of other idiosyncrasies that you'll see in other holidays. "Administrative Professionals' Day" is referred to with or without the apostrophe, depending on where you read it (on Wikipedia, it currently has an apostrophe, but most of the other top hits on Google don't have it). Yet its original name "Secretary's Day" is almost always rendered with an apostrophe, and more confusingly, it usually doesn't use the plural "Secretaries' Day". Unlike Veterans Day, which is a U.S. Government federal holiday enacted by law, "Secretary's Day" is an unofficial holiday, so there is no one authoritative source that can say what the correct spelling should be. The English language was constructed from several other languages that have inconsistent approaches to word order, and holiday names suffer from it. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. :) I have a question, though. Why is one Valentine's Day and one St. Patrick's Day instead of St. Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day or Valentine's Day and Patrick's Day? - Zhang He (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe from the Catholic church's perspective, they should both have "St." at the beginning. But Valentine's Day was co-opted by Hallmark, and at this point is known more for the way Hallmark treats it than for the religious association. While I can't be sure, I have two, equally valid theories for why the "St." is dropped:
1. Hallmark (or other companies marketing the holiday) ditched it because they wanted to shed the religious association
2. Valentine is a *really* uncommon name. When you say Valentine's Day, there's no chance of being misconstrued. On the other hand Patrick is an incredibly common name, particularly in Ireland where the holiday's celebration started. Saying Patrick's Day might mean Patrick the fireman, or Patrick the bartender, or Patrick the basketball player, and you might be abbreviating something like "It's Patrick's (birth)day". So they say Saint to make it clear.
Hello Zhang He, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Assad Shafique) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW(Talk)03:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Zhang He, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Lukas H. Lundin - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW(Talk)03:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zhang He. I declinded your tagging of Grady (band) with A2, as it only applies to articles that are copied from a foreign-language Wikipedia. In this case, there was no article on the Spanish Wikipedia for this subject. I've noticed from some of your other messages that you might be over-tagging with speedy deletion. Please remember they have a very narrow scope, and PROD or AfD should be used for articles outside of their scope. Singularity42 (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thank you for informing me. Also, no problem. We all make mistakes. It wouldn't be human if no mistakes were ever made. :) - Zhang He (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zhang He, I've applied rollback to your account as you requested. I was glad to find no inappropriate reversions recently, and I also note that you are responding to queries on your talk page in a positive manner. I shall continue to monitor your contributions and will reassess this if necessary. But keep up the good work, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To tell you the truth, I don't think that was the main problem. I think it was mostly because of the edit war I got into with it. - Zhang He (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that recent changes and new page patrol might not be your greatest strength to Wikipedia, and I encourage you to continue looking for other areas where your skills might be of benefit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
December
Borrowing your Navbar
I like your Navbar, and was considering borrowing it for my own talk page. Normally I steal from other people's user pages shamelessly, but I wanted to make sure it was okay with you, since a lot more effort went into that Navbar than most of the small stuff I steal. Also, if I can figure out how to do it, I might edit your copy directly (rather than making a personal copy) such that it automagically changes the links to match the page it appears on. I'm new to this myself, so it would be a learning experience. I promise to double-check functionality after any edits (I don't want to mess up your talk page after all). Is this agreeable? —ShadowRanger(talk|stalk)21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all, I'm just surprised people like something I made (well, at least modified from one of the pre-made navbars) :) I tried to fix it so that it changed to to page name (using {{BASEPAGENAME}} I believe) but failed horribly. I know that it can be done, but it's just over my head, so good luck. Cheers! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes00:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hello, i would just like to ask you not to accuse me of lying. i know you are well intentioned but i do not appreciate it. I can understand your view, as i am sure many people do lie and make up excuses. Thank you and Merry Christmas :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamcjones1995 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monkerai
you deleted my page on monkerai.. i would apreciate if you returned it to its former state as it was before your authourised act of vandalism.
i spent alot of my time creating that page and if you are a "reasonalble man" as you claim, you will heed my wish.
I'm sending this to the vandal fighters out there, If an IP address removes a whois tag (Not a {{sharedip}}, {{isp}} or other tags in Category:Shared_IP_header_templates) after it's been placed on the page, please don't restore it onto the page as it's the newest thing along with restoring IP warnings to not be covered by the 3RR rule. Please refer to the Whois template documentation for more info, it is also reflected when you go to WP:BLANKING. Thanks. Momo sanGespräch00:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, the formatting looks fine to me, but it could be something about where we use different browsers. I'll check it out later. BTW, the talkback template is {{tb|Zhang He}} is you want to use it, but, of course, there is nothing wrong with just typing out a message either. Cheers! Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes03:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I believe it's just because the message is short. I'll see of there a way to stretch it out and still look right. If not, the first one I got wasn't very wide, so they make for nice book ends :) Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes03:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas
Click there to open your card! → → →
Dear Amaury,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - MerryChristmas! - 00:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas!
Apparition11 is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Probably, but I've always used the rule of thumb that if you pause between saying words, put a comma, if you don't, then don't. That and I don't usually care much if I make a grammatical error on a talk page :) Apparition11Complaints/Mistakes20:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to approach you about the Zoe Carpenter article and your recent edits to it. Within the Hollyoaks WikiProject which deals with that specific article, we prefer to use the dating system as it was. I just wanted to ask you on why you think her article should be any different? I've decided that at the moment, I will leave your edits as they are as I do not want to become involved in an Edit war. Whoniverse93 (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Friend request accepted! :) - Amaury (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Content dispute. Consider dispute resolution.
About User talk:Mytestid1980 and do not bite the newcomers.
But a little angel came along and fixed it! 
Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Vipinhari (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
