Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
2nd warning, get off my damn user page. It was upheld at MfD recently, so you are going to get no traction on this. I have seen your eccentric little wiki-gnome antics taken to ANI over the years where IIRC they do not look very kindly upon you. You are not a cop, you are not a judge, I do not value your opinion in the slightest. Please stop. Now. ] (]) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Your responsibility when using automated and semi-automated tools.
You are responsible for all of your edits, regardless of mistakes tools make in showing you content.
In this edit and this edit, labeled "copyedit," you reverted appropriate copyediting by Mogism, and placed level 1 and level 4 vandalism warnings for Mogism. There was no vandalism, and your reverts were in error.
When approached about these obvious errors, you deferred to what appears to be eronious output from some automated tool you are using (), and then stated that your reverts were not in error . In fact, your reverts, as demonstrated above, were in error.
Please assure me that you will be responsible in future use of automated tools, and carefully evaluate future questions regarding your editing before becoming reflexively defensive - in this case, you were clearly in the wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, you might want to explain what exactly you thought you were doing here (in an edit made long after you were warned that your tool was malfunctioning). Short of going through your history checking every edit, there's no way of knowing how many of these "vandal reverts" you've made, but even if these are the only instances you're well over the line into outright disruption. Mogism (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm even more troubled by his edit summaries when he reverts actual vandalism; here he reverted vandalism of the most obvious and worst kind, yet his summary makes it seem like he just removed something just because it wasn't cited. Worse, it suggests he thinks it could be cited! postdlf (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I used that because I was advised not to use harsh wording. It's meant to be tounge-in-cheek. Realistically, nothing like that would be sourced to any reliable source. "....We are all Kosh...."<-Babylon-5->18:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Please use standard edit summaries. Review the edit summaries used by Mogism, as he's doing it right. Your attempts to be "cute" are failing. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
You're leaving escalating vandalism and block warnings for experienced editors who you thought removed some text without explanation, and you even insist you were correct in doing so after being shown you were wrong in the edit history. Yet you use a tongue-in-cheek request for a citation for obvious vandalism about someone raping children, because you're concerned about using harsh wording? Something is very wrong here. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
......You do see I stopped editing when this started up,right ? It's not like I'm continuing. I'm testing the tool I use right now (and have been ) to see if it's buggy. Stop alraedy, you're beating a dead horse at this stage. I won't edit again without verifying this tool isn't buggy.
Hi, thanks for helping to revert vandalism, just a quick note about Royal Enfield and the warning you left on User talk:124.30.187.33.
If you have a look at the article history or on the user talk page you will notive that it had been going on for a while and warnings up to (and including) level 4 had been left (and I had reported the user to WP:AIV). So whilst there isn't anything wrong, per se, with adding a level 1 warning (as you did) it would have been more appropriate to add another level 4 (or only warning (level 4im)) to have left what was there and check that the user had been reported to WP:AIV.
Once again thank you very much for helping to fight vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Callanecc (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't repeat the actual content of the vandalism in your edit summary that removed it., This just perpetuates the problem by making it a blatant part of the article's history instead of just leaving it in the old version, consequently rewarding the vandals. It's enough to say "remove vandalism" or "remove nonsense" or "remove test edit" in your edit summary. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
For future reference, the OTRS ticket number referenced in the hidden notice is #2008091610055854. I am going to add that to the other pages where the hidden notice is placed. If I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to let me know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
2nd warning, get off my damn user page. It was upheld at MfD recently, so you are going to get no traction on this. I have seen your eccentric little wiki-gnome antics taken to ANI over the years where IIRC they do not look very kindly upon you. You are not a cop, you are not a judge, I do not value your opinion in the slightest. Please stop. Now. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
