This guy sucks a fat chode.
Please explain to me how my edits constitute vandalism
The intro to List of Major League Baseball perfect games did not include any reference to Matt Cain when it did every other modern perfect game pitcher, and Humber has been a pile of suck for going on 2 seasons now, so I pluralised 'season.' Not seeing the vandalism here. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- As I stated in my comment, it was unsourced, which was why I removed it. The fact that you immediately reverted my edit with no explanation was I considered it vandalism. I am ducking out of it now, you may do as you wish. I would however encourage you to read WP:3RR. I am not saying the information is not valid, but putting up blanket statements from an unregistered account with no source was suspicious. --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe ease back on the suspicion there; I have never vandalised. NOTHING in that paragraph has a source, so either prune it all or leave it all. I can easily source what I added, but I'm not sure why I need to do so when no one else who contributed to that section did. You removing my contribution without any edit summary was kinda disrespectful, too. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Logo of Kern County Fire Department.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Logo of Kern County Fire Department.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zackmann08 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The proposed deletion process is only for uncontested cases. The template in question states, "You may remove this message if you ... object to deletion for any reason. ... If this template is removed, do not replace it." So, the action of edit-warring to put back the template is incorrect and you should please revert it.
If you're wanting a deletion discussion then AFD is the appropriate process. But please see the recent similar case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Rafael Fire Department which indicates that there is unlikely to be a consensus for such action. Andrew (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
As you seem to understand this issue now, I have removed the prod again. I also see you trying to delete fire camp and will be opposing this too. Please understand that there's nothing personal in this. I patrol deletion lists in the manner of a fire watch and report any cases which seem in need of rescue to the Article Rescue Squadron. This affinity makes me especially watchful in the case of other rescue services. :) Andrew (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
i remove 3/4 of the tags, it's not really that long, and it is definitely NOT a BLP article. BLP sources does not apply,a nd really, is meant for pages with only a few sources. the FDNY article has 46, an OK number for an article of it's length. please use the appropriate tags from now on. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Zackmann, I noticed that you're a member of WP Fire Service. I was wondering if you could help me out. Mumbai Fire Brigade has a lot of concerns. I was wondering if you could help out with it on the talk page? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Physical Properties of a Terabyte
Hello Zack, why would you flag my sourced section about the Terabyte as vandalism, when I specifically stated why and how this could be proven? The sources explain what was discovered from research, so I can't see how they would classify as invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)