| Revision as of 18:57, 5 May 2009 view sourceAmaury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,253 editsm →Rollback & warning for vandalism on Photosystem 1← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:07, 5 May 2009 view source Apparition11 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,175 edits →Rollback & warning for vandalism on Photosystem 1: re +linkNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| I see you have just been granted rollback privileges, please be mindful of how you are using it, a user you reverted and warned for vandalism ended up on my talk page confused and wondering what he had done wrong. All he did was overwrite a redirect to begin a legit article, not only do I see no reason to revert him in the first place, accusing him of vandalism was entirely uncalled for. Please be careful before you pull the trigger, we do not want to drive away good editors. ] <small>]</small> 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | I see you have just been granted rollback privileges, please be mindful of how you are using it, a user you reverted and warned for vandalism ended up on my talk page confused and wondering what he had done wrong. All he did was overwrite a redirect to begin a legit article, not only do I see no reason to revert him in the first place, accusing him of vandalism was entirely uncalled for. Please be careful before you pull the trigger, we do not want to drive away good editors. ] <small>]</small> 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :*Eugene, how many times is this going to happen before you learn to be more cautious and stop making unfounded vandalism accusations? This is far from the first time this has happened, I implore you once again to ''slow down'' and make sure an edit was vandalism before warning. ] (]) 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | :*Eugene, how many times is this going to happen before you learn to be more cautious and stop making unfounded vandalism accusations? This is far from the first time this has happened, I implore you once again to ''slow down'' and make sure an edit was vandalism before warning. ] (]) 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::*Yeah, that one is bad. Calling someone a vandal when they are trying to build an article really goes against what Misplaced Pages is all about. Just guessing here, but looking at the edits, I'm guessing that you saw which appears to be the cleaning out of loose references. I think that there are a few points to learn here: 1) Make sure to look at the entirety of the edits. Botanicleve made three straight edits before you reverted. Make sure to look at the overall work, not just one diff. 2) Try to figure out why someone would remove content when they do. Looking at that diff, it's pretty obvious what the editor was doing when taking into account the section that he is editing. 3) Double check your work. You gave Botanicleve a page blanking/removal of content warning. After you reverted, if you looked at your diff, you were actually the one who removed content. <font color="#330099" face="Cooper Black">] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></font> 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ::*Yeah, that one is bad. Calling someone a vandal when they are trying to build an article really goes against what Misplaced Pages is all about. Just guessing here, but looking at the edits, I'm guessing that you saw which appears to be the cleaning out of loose references. I think that there are a few points to learn here: 1) Make sure to look at the entirety of the edits. Botanicleve made three straight edits before you reverted. Make sure to look at the overall work, not just one diff. 2) Try to figure out why someone would remove content when they do. Looking at that diff, it's pretty obvious what the editor was doing when taking into account the section that he is editing. 3) Double check your work. You gave Botanicleve a page blanking/removal of content warning. After you reverted, if you looked at , you were actually the one who removed content. <font color="#330099" face="Cooper Black">] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></font> 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::That was with Twinkle, but regardless, it's the same, so I understand. - ] (]) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | :::That was with Twinkle, but regardless, it's the same, so I understand. - ] (]) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Yeah, it looks like the edit took place actually before you were granted rollback. Just do try to be careful. You have improved a lot, just learn from this mistake and keep improving. <font color="#330099" face="Cooper Black">] <sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small></font> 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:07, 5 May 2009
It is currently 22:57 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
Regarding 72.249.127.86
J.Delanoy blocked the range (72.249.64.0/18, see here for proof) for one week but the talk pages are unprotected. If you see an IP in this range vandalising, request that the page be protected since the IP range is already blocked. Thanks. Momo san 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- You got it! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Baroon dollars
Hi was wondering why you marked my article `Baroon dollars' for deletion - Other community currencies are located throughout Misplaced Pages - then the rule must be the same for a new one. Who do I need to complain to? --Darren Mitchell (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
Congrats on getting Rollback! Just a reminder, remember that it's only for blatantly unconstructive edits. If there are doubts, you should use one of the methods that allow you to leave an edit summary. You've been doing this well anyways, so I don't think that you'll have any problems. Again, congrats! Keep up the good work! Apparition /Mistakes 14:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Can you customize the rollback message? Because I noticed on some of the Huggle users who revert, the only think linked is the vandal's username plus the vandal's talk page link. The test I just did on my userpage was different. It had "Reverted" linked. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are ways to, but I've never used them. You can find about them here. The only way I've ever done it is through Huggle, which does it automatically for you. Personally, what I do is use Rollback (ie the default edit summary) just for vandalism, and use Twinkle to give an edit summary. However, if you want to play with the scripts that allow edit summaries, have fun :) Apparition /Mistakes 14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw your application, and decided not to oppose it this time. Please be careful ... with your history, you will be watched closely by a lot of people. A small mistake that would be ignored for another editor is likely to have consequences for you.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's very true. Plus, if you (Eugene) start using Huggle, mistakes get very easy to make, even for the most experienced editors. Try to always err on the side of caution. If there's any doubt at all, try to leave an edit summary instead of rollbacking. Apparition /Mistakes 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Rollback & warning for vandalism on Photosystem 1
I see you have just been granted rollback privileges, please be mindful of how you are using it, a user you reverted and warned for vandalism ended up on my talk page confused and wondering what he had done wrong. All he did was overwrite a redirect to begin a legit article, not only do I see no reason to revert him in the first place, accusing him of vandalism was entirely uncalled for. Please be careful before you pull the trigger, we do not want to drive away good editors. Equendil Talk 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Eugene, how many times is this going to happen before you learn to be more cautious and stop making unfounded vandalism accusations? This is far from the first time this has happened, I implore you once again to slow down and make sure an edit was vandalism before warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that one is bad. Calling someone a vandal when they are trying to build an article really goes against what Misplaced Pages is all about. Just guessing here, but looking at the edits, I'm guessing that you saw this edit which appears to be the cleaning out of loose references. I think that there are a few points to learn here: 1) Make sure to look at the entirety of the edits. Botanicleve made three straight edits before you reverted. Make sure to look at the overall work, not just one diff. 2) Try to figure out why someone would remove content when they do. Looking at that diff, it's pretty obvious what the editor was doing when taking into account the section that he is editing. 3) Double check your work. You gave Botanicleve a page blanking/removal of content warning. After you reverted, if you looked at your diff, you were actually the one who removed content. Apparition /Mistakes 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was with Twinkle, but regardless, it's the same, so I understand. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks like the edit took place actually before you were granted rollback. Just do try to be careful. You have improved a lot, just learn from this mistake and keep improving. Apparition /Mistakes 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)