User talk:Barts1a

NOTICE TO ALL USERS

Please place any comments you wish to make at the BOTTOM of the talk page. Thank you Barts1a (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: Please note that this is NOT the place for complaints! If you have a complaint please direct it here or it will be moved there via copy+paste and you will not be notified of this move by me. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 11:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page

Reaper Eternal (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Wha?

I hope you are not referring to me in this change. If you are, well, I'm a tad confused and sorry about the trouble, and have slightly less than no idea what's going on. Who, exactly, doesn't want you to help out anymore? Sven Manguard _Talk 02:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I mean users like Off2riorob and David Biddulph. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 08:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignore them. First of all, a candidate asking you to stop being a coordinator stinks of impropriety. He has no business in your business, period. Second of all, this is a volunteer group, and as such, as long as you are in good standing, and are not trying to use the position to game the elections, you should be able to be a member. IMO the only people that have a leg to stand on in telling you or anyone else not to be a coordinator are the other coordinators and even then, Skomorokh and Tony1 effectively run the show, and unless they say you should withdraw, I wouldn't. (Personally, I would also probably listen to Fetchcomms because I hold him in high regard, but the point being as it is, you should ignore those Off2riorob and David Biddulph.) SandyGeorgia tried to convince Wifione to leave, and Wifione didn't. Why should you behave any differently in that respect? Sven Manguard _Talk 19:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Silvstedt

No edit warring just trying to revert vandalism :D Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CENSOR and tell me why this core policy opposes your so-called "Vandalism" reversion Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 09:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Silvstedt&diff=prev&oldid=399096267 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Silvstedt&diff=prev&oldid=399096773 these edits constitute vandalism my dear sir. The pic is irrelevant. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

These are no reason to revert the later edits. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints?

But the early edits prove he was there to be disruptive NOT constructive. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

They are only 2 edits. We need at lest 4 such edits to take action. Please assume good faith thanks! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 09:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I will drop the case against him if you drop the case against me. Deal? Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment Have either of you you noticed that the vast majority of Batterylow4's contributions are just changing the image used on the page to one that doesn't exist on English Wikipedia? Kiore (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have. The case has been dropped against him by me. The issue now is Barts attitude toward me. Comment on THAT. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to drop the case. But first I'll remind you of WP:BOOMERANG through this message. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 11:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Dele.te001

Good faith was assumed. The user was damaging the encyclopedia. It's pretty clear to me that blanking was their only business here. Dawnseeker2000 00:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know not to bite the newcomers? A simple friendly message would have sufficed rather than an attitude of using rather unfriendly warnings. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've heard of the "bite" policy, but eh, they're here to vandalize. I did overdo it with the warnings though. Dawnseeker2000 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow up here. I didn't want to have you walk away from this without letting you know that this was my bad. I didn't realize until Black Kite posted on my talk page that the user added content but "overwrote" the existing content. I had been working too quickly I guess and that's why I didn't notice. I was under the impression that the blanking was complete and that there was no attempt to add anything. I didn't look closely enough. By the time Black Kite posted to my talk I had already posted two final warnings on the user's talk. I over-reacted there, thinking that this was, without doubt, another vandal. With many thousands of pages on my watch list it just seems like that's all I see around here is vandalism. I goofed here, but this is the first of its kind in some time. Anyway, have a good night. Dawnseeker2000 02:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Message I Recently Recieved From You

Hi I just got a message from you saying that one of my corrections on Scooby Doo! and the Curse of the Lake Monster was wrong and it was changed back because of no source, but I just looked and the change I made is still there so yeah I'm confused! I'm hoping you can clear this up for me? By the way the 68.63.130.216 was my computers IP address which it recorded so you know that was me. BenderFett (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The above's first edit in 4 1/2 years. That might be a new record. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Careful using Twinkle

Please be careful when you use Twinkle and revert edits as vandalism. There's a very specific definition of what edits are considered vandalism on the WP:VANDTYPES page. This edit clearly does not fall into that category. While I agree with your revert, it should not have been done using Twinkle's Rollback (Vandal) button. Using that feature incorrectly as you did is a good way to lose access to Twinkle. Ravensfire (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

not vandalism

There may be meaningful content and sock worries, but these edits are not vandalism, which has a very narrow meaning here. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked as a sock, please keep in mind, the edits weren't vandalism, although they were disruptive and block-evading. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a, for the most part, you are using Twinkle's rollback as vandalism correctly, but not always. If something was added in good faith, even if it's wrong or unsourced, it's generally not vandalism. Even stubborn or disruptive edits aren't considered vandalism. If you aren't totally sure, use the undo button or the AGF rollback in twinkle. I still goof on occasion too, but please try to be careful.

Also, when you're considering a 3rr warning, remember that multiple edits in a row are considered a single edit. So if I make 3 edits changing/removing what you did, you revert, then I add my changes back, that's really only 2 reverts, not 4. Shrug - I didn't know about it for a while, so just passing on some knowledge. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm

this is a little bit extreme. I'd encourage you to retract it. Certainly, calling a poll to de-sysop someone on their talk page is no collegial. FYI (for reference) de-sysopping is not a simple process - if the AN/I thread takes hold the next step would be an RFC and then Arbcom. You've majorly pre-empted such actions (which will probably not be warranted anyway) and that is not going to go down well! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 00:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Festina lente

Hi. I was hoping you could explain this recent revert you made. The content looks ok to me, and the sources I've followed up so far seem to check out, so I'm not sure why you would have rolled it back. Perhaps I'm missing something? - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it back. I presume this means it was just an error - I make enough of those too. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My bot

Indeed, I screwed up and forgot to convert to talk pages after computer restarted jsut after I had done it the first time. I do apologise. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 12:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and falsely accusing editors of vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked you for:

• Edit warring in the U2 article
• Falsely accusing the editors you're edit warring with of vandalism in these edits: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Issuing two long-established editors with first and last warnings for vandalism as part of this is particularly inappropriate. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Barts1a (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apoloize if my editing was disruptive; I was only trying to clean up the clear anti-consensus editing on U2. I thought that I was doing the right thing but clearly I wasn't. I will not edit the U2 article again and have already removed it from my watchlist. I would also like to issue an apology to the editors I mistakingly called vandals. I was just getting tired of the ongoing content dispute. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm declining this for the minute. I have a few things to chat with you about before unblocking, so I'm just taking you out of the category so I don't get an edit conflict. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Go ahead... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I'm one of the editors he accused of vandalism and who copped a "last warning" template. For what it's worth, i'd recommend his block being lifted if he recognises the valid concerns that saw him blocked and if doesn't continue like that. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. While I have your attention, I think this is part of a larger problem with your editing. You're simply going too fast and, in trying to help, you're actually making a nuisance of yourself. Most editors with your level of experience don't comment at every opportunity on every noticeboard they can find. For example, your attempts to help at WP:ANEW over the last few days have just resulted in you frustrating other editors, making useless edits and then having to correct yourself. Your intentions are good, that much is obvious, but you're doing more harm than good. It seems you're interested in becoming an administrator, but admins have to learn the ropes just the same way as any other editor and acting like an administrator is one sure-fire way to fail an RfA. You need to leave admin stuff to admins—for example, blocked editors don't want non-admins pointing out the reason for their block, especially when you're wrong. By popping up at every noticeboard, all you do is inflate your edit count, annoy people and increase the length of the thread.

I'm sorry to be so blunt with you, but, in my experience, the only way for an editor to know they're being disruptive is for somebody to tell them so. I hope you'll take this on board and try to make yourself useful as a non-admin and only comment on noticeboards when you have useful input.

Now, if you understand the above and the reason for your block and agree to stay out of trouble, I'll lift the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep the block in place; I need a wikibreak anyway. Don't get me wrong; I understand why the block was applied; I just think that I am becoming a little bit too stressed about edits such as this being made on high-traffic pages and going un-noticed. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 02:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. A wikibreak can do one the world of good. Come to think of it, I probably need one myself. Easier said than done, I know, but you shouldn't let WP stress you out. Real life is stressful enough. Email me if you need anything and I hope you understand I'm not trying to "have a go" above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

<comment removed per WP:DFTT>

The user that posted the above comment also posted on my complaints page here.

LOL oh you are a foolish person. I will never be your friend Bart. I hope you respobd to this like a man too instead of deleting it like the worthless coward you are. Look at my contributions. I am a good user. Look at yours. You are a hapless young gentleman. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)