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 [1] 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".[2] 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 [4] 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]
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)
