Sorry about that. But I thought we could add example pages to sites with similar topics and services.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.148.47.84 ( talk) 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Cannot rollback last edit to Psychoanalysis by 212.219.190.164 (talk · block · contribs) because someone else has edited or rolled back the page already.
Last edit was by Peter Orme (talk · contributions).
brenneman {L} 08:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
many thanks for sorting out this page this morning. I think both of us were on the job! at the same time Children from a rival school plus our own kids have been at it
Thanks again
Alun Thomas Head of ICT Ysgol Gwynllyw
Go to WP:AIV, read the directions (admins will likely block only if they've vandalised after bv/blatantvandal,test3 or test4, and within the last few hours), copy the appropriate template, and add it to the "User/IP reported" section.
In my experience, they'll be blocked within ~1-20 minutes.
Thanks for the help! TransUtopian 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick permanent block of the vandalism only account User:Weberavin. Pete Orme 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.118.160.31 ( talk) 15:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
i'm in a computer lab at school, kids at the computers next to mine are vandalizing pages, i'm trying to get them to stop, thanks for helping me out, i'm new ^^ -- Chain Impact 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
(Ref: reverting vandalism on your user page)
You're welcome, anytime :D And that monkey vandal infobox is utter genius. Keep it right up, happy editing!
xCentaur |
talk
10:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded the pic the other night thinking that was the main ariticle for the film. Today I finally saw a seperate article just on the film and switched the image. Apologize for that.
![]() |
||
:::Received with thanks ! I'd rather not receive awards from
sockpuppets and
vandals
Pedro1999a |
Talk
21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've reverted your revert of Expulsion of Germans after World War II but missed the edit summary. Anyway, the wording has been already discussed and agreed before. I don't see why have you reverted it. -- Lysy talk 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My account was definitely not compromised. Exactly what edits do you refer to? Removal of links added by MillerCenter ( talk · contribs)? I already explained my actions at User talk:Rjensen; I was under an impression that it was a spam-only account, and in any case he failed to discuss their addition, even after a five-minute block to get his attention. Removal of a message by 72.49.182.192 ( talk · contribs) from my talk page? The message was a (poorly formatted) request to upload a file I couldn't even access (let alone verify its copyright status). I did respond on his talk page, saying that I can't and won't do it and why (and removed the message from my talk page as inappropriate), and he still kept asking so I had to respond in a more final way. Perhaps the change of block length of several users? If some of my actions were inappropriate or against the policy, I apologize for that. - Mike Rosoft 11:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message-- St.daniel 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the barnstar I cannot tell you what it means. Thanks--
St.daniel
21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
See
WP:NPA.
User:Zoe|
(talk)
22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you stop claiming that content differences is vandalism. I think I know what vandalism is, as I have been here a lot longer than you. If you want to address this in a moderated tone, I will do so, but your screaming of "vandalism" will not lead me to being cooperative.
User:Zoe|
(talk)
22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is at an end.
User:Zoe|
(talk)
22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought you said you removed this? I suggest you just blank this section, or archive it. Both are appropriate responses. It shows you've read the message, even if you didn't choose to respond. Best of luck in the future. Ben Aveling 11:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah...missed that one on Piracy. Thanks. JONJONAUG 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please keep me informed. If you do decide to take it to WP:ANI, I will be happy to assist. Jeffpw 08:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally pick on the to/too thing, it's just that it was bolded :) / wangi 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks once more for all your help and support. Pedro1999a | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Re: [1], I am not an admin, and have not had any personal interaction with Zoe. My first two observations after reading the AN/I thread are 1) while I feel I understand where you are coming from, you may be being a little too touchy for the oft tough world of WP editing and discussion; 2) take a look at Zoe's user page where she lists her philosophy. From this blurb, it does sound like she might be more focused on the community among admins than upon the WP community at large.
I have found that there are a wide variety of admins here. I recently listed my own first AN/I followed by a checkuser. I thought I had a very serious matter to bring up. Virtually no-one commented on the AN/I for several days, except to imply that maybe I should submit a checkuser request. I did so, and it was soon declined. I was disappointed. Then, w/o any more discussion, my AN/I was archived by a bot. Before I noticed this had happened, an admin noticed, resurrected it, and left a quick note that s/he would look in to my AN/I. Details continued for a while ... The bottom line result was that the accounts I originally raised concern about were all blocked for an indefinite amount of time since admins determined that the accounts I inquired about were reincarnations of a previously indefinitely blocked user. So, in my situation, some admins brushed my concern off as something that couldn't/shouldn't be dealt with (due to lack of archive information) while others took a fair amount of time to work with me, investigate the matter, and ended up implementing the "right" decision. If I am not mistaken, the primary admin who ended up helping me with my AN/I is one who, perhaps like Zoe, is perceived to be a very strong willed, sometimes prone to short answers, and yet, also a very good admin.
May I suggest that when and if you run in to another tension point with Zoe, we, the WP community, deal with it then, while it is happening? It may be that she just wants/needs to move on, and maybe this time, you need to too. However, if this truly is a pattern, the next time you notice it, you'll even have a previous AN/I in the archives to point to.
Just my two cents; hope some of it helps.
Keesiewonder talk 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Way to stay cool as a cucumber during your discussion as WP:AN/I! That was impressive, I hope many people learn from your attitude. -- Natalya 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delightful userpage pic! It suggests that we need a WikiVandal action figure, although I can't imagine who would market it. NewEnglandYankee 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I would if I was an administrator. They are pesky aren't they, those vandals. Chensiyuan 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why? It's obviously a page some little kid made to make himself seem cool, nothing to discuss -- feb talk 09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a tag to indicate orphaned talk pages that need deleting after main article was Speedily Deleted? Been to WP:SD and can#t see anything.
Yes, typically, the software will include the contents of the page on an edit summary. In general, if there is a speedy deletion tag on a page, you don't need to create a talk page to request deletion as well. It just makes another page for the admins to delete. Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I realised when I saved that I placed it in the wrong area. Therequiembellishere 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How did I vandalize the page? -- Napnet 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Edinburgh#Flags. Thanks/ wangi 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Wiki Wiffle Bat | |
This award (none of the barnstars seemed to fit just right) is for your excellently articulated and defended defense of the flags on the Edinburgh page. Rarely have I seen an argument of such quality during a discussion page dispute. Cheers! GlamdringCookies 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you for your kind words. I truly appreciate them.
As far as your scored out comment is concerned, I am a little distressed at your edit. I had intended, and had thought that I had achieved, a very gentle explanation of how the project works. Certainly it was not my intention to bite anyone, and I am saddened if it appeared that I did. I suppose we all make mistakes.-- Anthony.bradbury 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the interest and help you have given me of late. I really appreciate it! -- Death666 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
He was not famous and he was very uneducated and should not be included in the wikipedia. That is why I Blanked his page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VCinema ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Hello Pedro. The IP you referenced is a proxy server. Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have declined the speedy deletion request for this article because playing for Forfar Athletic F.C. is an assertion of notability. You may nominate the article at AfD if you wish. Oldelpaso 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And always willing to help my Wikifriends. I'm just selectively editing from now on. Jeffpw 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll consider that, thank you.-- hnnvansier 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In what way is it relevant to the argument? Maurauth 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I did. Maurauth 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: Civility:
Before you refer others to a Wikipedia policy, perhaps you should examine it yourself? -- Xiaphias 10:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"Artefact" is the more common variant in British English, see for example http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-art1.htm -- Guinnog 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's usually just a question of checking the diffs far enough back. In my case, it was easy because I knew for a fact that my last edit from yesterday was good, so I just looked at the diff between that and the current version. Since there was nothing but silliness, it was trivial to remove. It would have been more difficult if there were any other good edits aside from partial reversions between. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to
RMS Titanic, are considered
vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be
blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
Matteo (
talk
@)
20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. But I thought we could add example pages to sites with similar topics and services.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.148.47.84 ( talk) 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
Cannot rollback last edit to Psychoanalysis by 212.219.190.164 (talk · block · contribs) because someone else has edited or rolled back the page already.
Last edit was by Peter Orme (talk · contributions).
brenneman {L} 08:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
many thanks for sorting out this page this morning. I think both of us were on the job! at the same time Children from a rival school plus our own kids have been at it
Thanks again
Alun Thomas Head of ICT Ysgol Gwynllyw
Go to WP:AIV, read the directions (admins will likely block only if they've vandalised after bv/blatantvandal,test3 or test4, and within the last few hours), copy the appropriate template, and add it to the "User/IP reported" section.
In my experience, they'll be blocked within ~1-20 minutes.
Thanks for the help! TransUtopian 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick permanent block of the vandalism only account User:Weberavin. Pete Orme 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.118.160.31 ( talk) 15:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
i'm in a computer lab at school, kids at the computers next to mine are vandalizing pages, i'm trying to get them to stop, thanks for helping me out, i'm new ^^ -- Chain Impact 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
(Ref: reverting vandalism on your user page)
You're welcome, anytime :D And that monkey vandal infobox is utter genius. Keep it right up, happy editing!
xCentaur |
talk
10:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded the pic the other night thinking that was the main ariticle for the film. Today I finally saw a seperate article just on the film and switched the image. Apologize for that.
![]() |
||
:::Received with thanks ! I'd rather not receive awards from
sockpuppets and
vandals
Pedro1999a |
Talk
21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've reverted your revert of Expulsion of Germans after World War II but missed the edit summary. Anyway, the wording has been already discussed and agreed before. I don't see why have you reverted it. -- Lysy talk 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My account was definitely not compromised. Exactly what edits do you refer to? Removal of links added by MillerCenter ( talk · contribs)? I already explained my actions at User talk:Rjensen; I was under an impression that it was a spam-only account, and in any case he failed to discuss their addition, even after a five-minute block to get his attention. Removal of a message by 72.49.182.192 ( talk · contribs) from my talk page? The message was a (poorly formatted) request to upload a file I couldn't even access (let alone verify its copyright status). I did respond on his talk page, saying that I can't and won't do it and why (and removed the message from my talk page as inappropriate), and he still kept asking so I had to respond in a more final way. Perhaps the change of block length of several users? If some of my actions were inappropriate or against the policy, I apologize for that. - Mike Rosoft 11:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message-- St.daniel 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the barnstar I cannot tell you what it means. Thanks--
St.daniel
21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
See
WP:NPA.
User:Zoe|
(talk)
22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you stop claiming that content differences is vandalism. I think I know what vandalism is, as I have been here a lot longer than you. If you want to address this in a moderated tone, I will do so, but your screaming of "vandalism" will not lead me to being cooperative.
User:Zoe|
(talk)
22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is at an end.
User:Zoe|
(talk)
22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought you said you removed this? I suggest you just blank this section, or archive it. Both are appropriate responses. It shows you've read the message, even if you didn't choose to respond. Best of luck in the future. Ben Aveling 11:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah...missed that one on Piracy. Thanks. JONJONAUG 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Please keep me informed. If you do decide to take it to WP:ANI, I will be happy to assist. Jeffpw 08:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't normally pick on the to/too thing, it's just that it was bolded :) / wangi 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks once more for all your help and support. Pedro1999a | Talk 11:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Re: [1], I am not an admin, and have not had any personal interaction with Zoe. My first two observations after reading the AN/I thread are 1) while I feel I understand where you are coming from, you may be being a little too touchy for the oft tough world of WP editing and discussion; 2) take a look at Zoe's user page where she lists her philosophy. From this blurb, it does sound like she might be more focused on the community among admins than upon the WP community at large.
I have found that there are a wide variety of admins here. I recently listed my own first AN/I followed by a checkuser. I thought I had a very serious matter to bring up. Virtually no-one commented on the AN/I for several days, except to imply that maybe I should submit a checkuser request. I did so, and it was soon declined. I was disappointed. Then, w/o any more discussion, my AN/I was archived by a bot. Before I noticed this had happened, an admin noticed, resurrected it, and left a quick note that s/he would look in to my AN/I. Details continued for a while ... The bottom line result was that the accounts I originally raised concern about were all blocked for an indefinite amount of time since admins determined that the accounts I inquired about were reincarnations of a previously indefinitely blocked user. So, in my situation, some admins brushed my concern off as something that couldn't/shouldn't be dealt with (due to lack of archive information) while others took a fair amount of time to work with me, investigate the matter, and ended up implementing the "right" decision. If I am not mistaken, the primary admin who ended up helping me with my AN/I is one who, perhaps like Zoe, is perceived to be a very strong willed, sometimes prone to short answers, and yet, also a very good admin.
May I suggest that when and if you run in to another tension point with Zoe, we, the WP community, deal with it then, while it is happening? It may be that she just wants/needs to move on, and maybe this time, you need to too. However, if this truly is a pattern, the next time you notice it, you'll even have a previous AN/I in the archives to point to.
Just my two cents; hope some of it helps.
Keesiewonder talk 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Way to stay cool as a cucumber during your discussion as WP:AN/I! That was impressive, I hope many people learn from your attitude. -- Natalya 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Delightful userpage pic! It suggests that we need a WikiVandal action figure, although I can't imagine who would market it. NewEnglandYankee 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I would if I was an administrator. They are pesky aren't they, those vandals. Chensiyuan 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Why? It's obviously a page some little kid made to make himself seem cool, nothing to discuss -- feb talk 09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a tag to indicate orphaned talk pages that need deleting after main article was Speedily Deleted? Been to WP:SD and can#t see anything.
Yes, typically, the software will include the contents of the page on an edit summary. In general, if there is a speedy deletion tag on a page, you don't need to create a talk page to request deletion as well. It just makes another page for the admins to delete. Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I realised when I saved that I placed it in the wrong area. Therequiembellishere 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How did I vandalize the page? -- Napnet 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Edinburgh#Flags. Thanks/ wangi 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Wiki Wiffle Bat | |
This award (none of the barnstars seemed to fit just right) is for your excellently articulated and defended defense of the flags on the Edinburgh page. Rarely have I seen an argument of such quality during a discussion page dispute. Cheers! GlamdringCookies 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you for your kind words. I truly appreciate them.
As far as your scored out comment is concerned, I am a little distressed at your edit. I had intended, and had thought that I had achieved, a very gentle explanation of how the project works. Certainly it was not my intention to bite anyone, and I am saddened if it appeared that I did. I suppose we all make mistakes.-- Anthony.bradbury 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the interest and help you have given me of late. I really appreciate it! -- Death666 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
He was not famous and he was very uneducated and should not be included in the wikipedia. That is why I Blanked his page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VCinema ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Hello Pedro. The IP you referenced is a proxy server. Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have declined the speedy deletion request for this article because playing for Forfar Athletic F.C. is an assertion of notability. You may nominate the article at AfD if you wish. Oldelpaso 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And always willing to help my Wikifriends. I'm just selectively editing from now on. Jeffpw 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll consider that, thank you.-- hnnvansier 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
In what way is it relevant to the argument? Maurauth 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I did. Maurauth 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia: Civility:
Before you refer others to a Wikipedia policy, perhaps you should examine it yourself? -- Xiaphias 10:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"Artefact" is the more common variant in British English, see for example http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-art1.htm -- Guinnog 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's usually just a question of checking the diffs far enough back. In my case, it was easy because I knew for a fact that my last edit from yesterday was good, so I just looked at the diff between that and the current version. Since there was nothing but silliness, it was trivial to remove. It would have been more difficult if there were any other good edits aside from partial reversions between. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to
RMS Titanic, are considered
vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be
blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
Matteo (
talk
@)
20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)