Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 16 December 2005

Please stop adding nonsense to Misplaced Pages. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Fire Star 15:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Warning struck through by --Fire Star 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

All I did was delete the vandalism, then I left a note saying I did.

You should have checked the history before you accused me of screwing up the page.

Please restore my status or I will have no choice but to report it to higher-ups.

-H

You blanked the entire page out, that is not acceptable by wikipedia standards. You should have went through the history then and found a copy that was not vandalized and restore that version instead of simply blanking an entire page out. A lot of people have worked on that particular article and to just wipe it out is totally irresponsible and inconsiderate of those who put their time into it. I'm restoring the complaint logged against you by Fire Star & if you wish to take this up with the admins, go ahead. They've countlessly been blocking people who have done similiar things to that particular page as well. Next time do not blank a page, instead work to correct it if anything. --LifeStar 15:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

THE PAGE WAS ALREADY BLANKED OUT!

If I ever see the page blanked out again with crude language or pictures, I won't do anything lest I be blamed for something I clearly didn't do.

Like I said in my last comment, you could have looked at the history and found a copy that was not vandalized. It is TRUE that someone had vandalized right before you blanked the page, but the logical course would have been to go back to a GOOD copy of the article before the vandalism occurred. That's how we're able to restore the vandalized articles so fast. Next time, just try a little more before you decide to totally blank out the page b/c we see the last person who made the edit. Plus, blanking out a page is not advisable. --LifeStar 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the person who the first vandalism before you blanked the page was cited for vandalism too. --LifeStar 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since I didn't I was experienced enough to restore such a large article, the logical course of action was to make the vandalized page at least suitable for viewing.

It's like if someone damaged a soda machine while trying to break in and I get in trouble for leaving an "out of order" note.

That's fine, the issue has been dealt with. Take some time then to learn some tricks of restoration with the Sandbox in wiki or the intro page to editing pages on wiki. Either case, just be careful when blanking pages, admins and CVU people are just naturally quick to restore and warn b/c of the rampant vandalism on certain pages, esp. the George W. Bush one. --LifeStar 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I now believe that this user wasn't aware of the policy for restoring vandalised pages as mentioned by LifeStar, and that their efforts were in good faith. Unfortunately, the page in question does get a lot of "traffic" and that was why I mixed the editors up a bit. Mea culpa. Haizum isn't in trouble at all as far as I am concerned. If something like this happens again, you may leave a note on the person in question's talk page and they should be happy to remove any similarly mistaken notice. Regards, --Fire Star 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

THANKS! =) -Haizum

Sorry about that Haizum. I hope you understand, we're constantly reverting work done by vandals all the time. The reality is 99% of them use an IP address to make these edits, while 99% of the time users with registered names make contributions or reversions. So when the last version had your name on it and your page was basically blanked out, Fire Star & I thought you were talking about past vandalisms, not the guy before you, who had a registered name of all things! It's a good thing you kept bringing up the history, it was only when I took a deeper look into the content of the past user's edits then did I understand what you meant. Again, I hope you accept my apologies for assuming you purposedly vandalized the article. Have a good day. --LifeStar 16:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, having looked at the history of that article a little more, I understand now how much work the admins actually have to do. In the future I will either make my intentions more clear or allow the more experienced members to make the larger revisions. -H

Unblock request

Why was this user blocked?! Fire Star & I had determined that his past edits were not truly vandalism! Please read his discussion page to see what actually happened. I totally believed he was blocked unfairly and that this is really just biting inexperienced users without really seeing what actually happened. He hasn't done any editing since then and his only recent contributions was to his own talk page with me and Fire Star. I request that his block be immediately removed! --LifeStar 06:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

68.216.187.22 00:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted, since the block reason appears to have been a misunderstanding. I apologize for the lengthy delay since your request. // Pathoschild 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks.

Haizum 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)