| Revision as of 01:17, 5 August 2009 view sourcePastor Theo (talk | contribs)5,650 edits →Supposed vandalism: not vandalism← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:42, 5 August 2009 view source 68.193.137.89 (talk) →Page Removal: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| I have a question as to why removing invisible text placed underneath a redirect like is considered vandalism. I would also like to know why is considered vandalism, which you also reported in the vandalism report. ] (]) 01:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | I have a question as to why removing invisible text placed underneath a redirect like is considered vandalism. I would also like to know why is considered vandalism, which you also reported in the vandalism report. ] (]) 01:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :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. ] (]) 01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | :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. ] (]) 01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Page Removal == | |||
| My attempts to have a false page removed have been noted as "vandalism" by you. | |||
| Please delete this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Cryan1800 | |||
| It is an attack page - I'm not a regular user of Misplaced Pages so I do not know the proper way to have it removed. | |||
| Thank you. | |||
Revision as of 22:42, 5 August 2009
It is currently 12:37 where I am
January 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of January 2009 discussions can be found here.
February 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of February 2009 discussions can be found here.
March 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of March 2009 discussions can be found here.
April 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of April 2009 discussions can be found here.
May 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of May 2009 discussions can be found here.
June 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of June 2009 discussions can be found here.
July 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of July 2009 discussions can be found here.
August 2009
Syed9090 now Pk7311
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 07:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I am referring to edits on MQM and Altaf Hussain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Hamza (talk • contribs) 07:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Huggle
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. --auburnpilot talk 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. My apologies. Thank you for the message. - Zhang He (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Reverting talk
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)
- 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? →javért 09:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- I already got called upon for it. See above discussion. - Zhang He (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- I already got called upon for it. See above discussion. - Zhang He (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting user page vandalism
A lot can happen when a guy leaves his desk for lunch.DCmacnut<> 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. - Zhang He (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Supposed vandalism
Why do people keep reverting me for supposed vandalism such as this? KypDurron1 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Okay, so removing test edits is considered vandalism. Thanks for letting me know, I'll quit cleaning up Misplaced Pages now. KypDurron1 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, because they're allowed to test edit on their own pages. - Zhang He (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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. Apparition /Mistakes 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- 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
- Yes, because they're allowed to test edit on their own pages. - Zhang He (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so removing test edits is considered vandalism. Thanks for letting me know, I'll quit cleaning up Misplaced Pages now. KypDurron1 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Page Removal
My attempts to have a false page removed have been noted as "vandalism" by you.
Please delete this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Cryan1800
It is an attack page - I'm not a regular user of Misplaced Pages so I do not know the proper way to have it removed.
Thank you.