User talk:Zfish118

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Zfish118/Mkow88's Talk Page!

This page is archived occasionally. See: Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4


Hey, sorry I didn't get back on the deletion discussion. This is the first day I've been on Wikipedia for a week or so, I'm usually over on Wiktionary these days. The new name is fine with me for now, if anybody else uses the template and objects then we can deal with that later on. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up All's good! --Zfish118 (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Catholic Church, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. I count 48 revisions to this article today. If you used preview perhaps you could bundle your small changes into a smaller number of large revisions. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, however, I am correcting years worth of poorly formatted citations, which has lead to dozens of unexpected (and unexpectable) errors and naming conflicts. I am however, done for the day. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catholic Church, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Apostles of Jesus and Peter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Saint Peter, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Elizium23:, it is barbaric to give me a vandalism warning, when I clearly gave reasons for removing the material, not once, but twice, placed a notice that there is an on going discussion regarding that particular claim, AND was zero opportunity to respond to any valid concerns. In the interest of good faith, I wail assume the vandalism warning was a mistake, or perhaps over reaction. However, I want it documented that I did not "vandalize" this article. I give you permission to delete the the warning and this response if an appropriate acknowledgement is left. It is very frustrating that you make me jump through hoops to defend my good name, when I could have just as easily addressed your concerns on the talkpage. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, but you have to admit that your claim that it is "unsourced" is invalid. I reverted you and you began discussion, you should not have reverted me. Elizium23 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Elizium23: You did not give me the opportunity to respond. You accused me of "blanking" the page, which is an unfounded accusation that must be refuted. --Zfish118 (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You had an opportunity to respond which you used by reverting me. I did not accuse you of blanking the page, I submitted a warning against removal of content. You removed content without giving a valid reason. Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Elizium23:, your edit summary says differently "(Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Saint Peter. (TW))". I referred you to the talk page and would have typed an immediate response, but you chose to escalate with a formal warning, when this matter could have, and should have been handled informally as both experienced colleagues who want nothing more than accurate coverage. It is condescending, and inappropriate to use vandalism templates when an edit is clearly not not vandalism. I made my edit, referencing a relevant discussion, and even placed my reasons on the talk page. The edits I made did not misrepresent any Catholic teaching, nor the text of the Catholic Encyclopedia, as my second response on the Saint Peter talk page shows. In my opinion, it did not even portray Catholic teaching in anything but a positive light. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
the comma in that edit summary means "or". It is an automatic catch-all used by Twinkle. The warning was for removal of content and not blanking, but the edit summary covers both types with one summary. I am sorry that you feel attacked, and I am sorry that you feel it was barbaric of me, and I have removed the warning, and I hope that we can move forward to a common understanding, because I know you approach this in good faith. Elizium23 (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I actually did recognize this as a Twinkle message, and even my error interpreting the edit message after posting (now struck). My offense, was though, at the mechanical manner in which this was begun, suggesting a belief in poor faith, and appreciate your acknowledgment of the same. I do not wish to linger on the matter and with your permission, I shall delete or archive the exchange. --Zfish118 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)