| Revision as of 22:10, 8 June 2009 view source71.32.247.78 (talk) →Ransom of the Seven Ships← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:10, 8 June 2009 view source 71.32.247.78 (talk) →Ransom of the Seven ShipsNext edit → | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| ] (]) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ] (]) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Ah, okay. - ] (]) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | :Ah, okay. - ] (]) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Thank you. ] (]) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ::Thank you. ] (]) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:10, 8 June 2009
It is currently 23:27 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
Apparition's reviews
- This discussion is being continued from this subject.
La Niñera (Mexicana)
You requested speedy deletion of this article as patent nonsense. It is definitely not total nonsense, and I have accordingly declined the SD request. LadyofShalott 02:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
San Francisco International Airport
Hello, I added a destination on that page which will currently be served by Northwest Airlines and it seems that it keeps getting removed. Since I can't figure out what's going on i'd like to let you handle this matter. here is the link to the source that justifies my entry. http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/vietnam/2009/04/06/203162/U.S.-Northwest.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.47.123 (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Concern
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)
- 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)
- 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. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
- No problem. Happy to help. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I missed this one
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 Tiderolls 01:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for taking care of this joker for me. Happy editing! Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 02:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Query
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)
- Er, indeed, this is not vandalism. Please do not issue spurious warnings to others. Thanks, Sandstein 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was a small Huggle hiccup. I have reverted my warning. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which means Joshuaselig has now received a wrong warning by both of us today... Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was a small Huggle hiccup. I have reverted my warning. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! 10metreh (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Ransom of the Seven Ships
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)
- Ah, okay. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. 71.32.247.78 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)