Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 19 October 2009

User:Zhang He/Navbar

It is currently 22:20 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

Discussions archived

An archive of August 2009 discussions can be found here.

September 2009

Discussions archived

An archive of August 2009 discussions can be found here.

October 2009

Incorrect unconstructive marking

In August you thought I was making unconstructive edits to a page. This was my own former talk page. I had just undergone a name change moving away from my real name and was ensuring that the page was deleted. Thanks for ensuring that future edits are actually unconstructive before marking them as such. Naipicnirp (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to bring it back up if it was back in August. Forget about the past and move on. - Zhang He (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not "bringing it back up"- I had just noticed your false accusation and wanted to politely inform you of your error. Perhaps an apology or just viewing it as a reminder would have been more appropriate versus dismissing it as you did. Thanks again for ensuring you are well informed before making edits\accusations.Naipicnirp (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

About your rollback

Hi Zhang He, in response to your comments on my talk page. If you'd like to get rollback back I'd like to see two weeks of work on Recent Changes patrol using the undo button. If this is the work you are most interested in doing, then this shouldn't be too much to ask. It is only one extra step after all, and most reverts will require an informative edit summary anyway. I have been checking your contributions lately, and in the past two weeks you have done very little except making edits to your user space. This doesn't give me much to go on. I'd like to point out that there are dozens of other areas in which you could help Misplaced Pages, and you may find some of these more rewarding than just reverting vandalism. Let me know if you want any ideas! If you are not happy with my decision regarding the rollback, you are of course free to make a request at WP:RFR. Best wishes, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like to hear your ideas. - Zhang He (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivia-Spectre of the Gun

Hi Zhang,

I'm following Misplaced Pages guidelines. Guidelines states that any trivia sections must be removed. Any useful info can be put under a different title. (For example, production). So please don't mark any correct edits as "vandalism"

Live long and prosper. Bart-16 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the warning I gave you, it's a "Page blanking, removal of content" warning, not a "Vandalism" warning. However, I understand. Thank you for contacting me. - Zhang He (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material.

If you look here, I think you'll find that this paragraph was flagged as needing citation, because otherwise it's just WP:SYNTHESIS. User:Schrandit couldn't find a citation, so he changed the specific reference to WP:WEASEL words. However, it's still WP:SYNTHESIS, as there are no citations for any groups using these arguments.

In short, I think you may well have made a mistake in reverting my clean-up, and I urge you to revert yourself. Thank you. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No heading

Hi,

You reverted my recent edits to the Varun Gandhi page, and marked them as vandalism. I'd like to assure you they're anything but vandalism. I'm new to editing pages, so didn't leave comments. Basically, I had removed some out of date content and some redundant stuff. Moreover, I had also removed content who's sources seemed very weak - youtube, and op-ed columns from newspapers. One real news story that cited unnamed unconfirmed stories (seemed more of a rumor being printed) was also removed, as was the content it was being cited for. All rumors, no substantiation. I'm happy to discuss these in detail, or re-submit changes with comments. What's the best way? Thank you. 122.162.0.161 (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Help!

hey i need help posting stuff on wikipedia --Famous36 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just do what the welcome message on your talk page says to do if you need help. - Zhang He (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of tools

Its clear that you do not know how to use the tools you have been given I suggest that you review how and when to use them before you again erroneously revert GF edits as vandalism and have those tools removed. 172.162.117.13 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And you clearly don't check the history of articles to see if it was a mistake. - Zhang He (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You corrected your mistake while I was messaging you, I would suggest that you take more time and care in your edits - then you and others would have less opportunity to make mistakes. Take care. 172.162.117.13 (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A mistake quickly corrected is not misuse of tools. OhNoitsJamie 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for stating the obvious. I understand that it was a mistake, corrected after I had already seen the edit and came to this page, its one that could have been avoided with more diligence. Hardyplants (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If you acknowledge it's a mistake, why bother with the "take more time and care with your edits"? That's completely unnecessary. Everyone makes mistakes. This is Misplaced Pages, not a neurosurgical procedure. OhNoitsJamie 21:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

""take more time and care with your edits"? That's completely unnecessary." The point seems clear to me, I apoligize if I am not communication my point well. If he takes more time and pays more attention to what he is reverting and calling vandalism (diligence), he would most likely not make those types of edit mistakes. Also if he had made a simlpe staement like "I messed up and corrected it, sorry" - instead of "you clearly don't check the history of articles to see if it was a mistake" this specific incident would have been resolved. Every one makes mistakes, hopefully we learn from them and make any corrections were we can. Hardyplants (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As the Bell Rings (Australia)

you should update the page as a lot of people are missing from the cast list sorry deleting was a mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.17.85 (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of Laurel academy

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Laurel academy. I do not think that Laurel academy fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because CSD A7 does not apply to schools. I request that you consider not re-tagging Laurel academy for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Favonian (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. - Zhang He (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mission accomplished then :) You are quite right about this article not deserving to live (witness the fact that I've PRODed it), but like Homer Simpson said about an organization somewhat bigger that Misplaced Pages: "You guys have more crazy rules than Blockbuster Video." Favonian (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparition's review

I finally finished going through them. I saw a few that I think were questionable, but most of your reverts looked fine to me.

• This revert to 2009 ATP World Tour Finals wasn't very good. You didn't mark it as vandalism, so no huge deal, but the edit that you reverted fixed duplication of sources and made it more efficient, it didn't remove content.
• This revert to Random-access memory was a mistake, though an easy one to make. The reason the IP removed the section was because the section was duplicated, which was not possible to see using just the diff.
• This revert to Same-sex marriage and the family wasn't very good IMHO. Usually when an editor quotes policies, it's a good-faith edit, and at a quick glance, it appears that the reasoning was sound.
• This revert to America Ferrera actually reintroduced vandalism. The IP didn't get it all, but did try. The edit claimed that America was in a relationship in 1962, when she wasn't born until 1984. Really, if unsourced content is removed from a BLP, there should be a very good reason to reintroduce it without adding a source.

That's all that I saw. Cheers! Apparition /Mistakes 00:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Flyoffacliff

I have reverted this edit; the tag is wrong for a user page, and blanking ones own talk page (without losing the history) is allowable and common practice. I42 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. - Zhang He (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article

Hello,

I recently had an article deleted, and I don't think it was fair to delete it, as it met all of the terms and conditions.

The article was Sir Thomas Picton School-Year 10 Portal.

I was told to contact you if it was deleted.

Thanks. TGLewis (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it must not have. An administrator would have declined the speedy deletion if it was notable, but the administrator that deleted it obviously didn't think it was notable, so it was deleted. - Zhang He (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)