User talk:Baa

Removal of flags from Television Infoboxes

Please note the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Television#Consensus. An administrator has warned that flags be neither added nor removed from {{Infobox television}} until the discussion on their role within that infobox has been resolved. Dl2000 (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My Edit

Hi, this is my first tiime editing. I do not understand how it was not constructive. Especially with the example of the Breed standard and this history of the breed practices. BTCA mentions their breed order change, and BBCI should be listed as well, as it is the historical impetus for the change of breed practices for the BTCA. Is the absence of my putting a summary the reason the edit was reverted? I was unsure of where to put the summary or the reason for the edit. If I do that, will the edit be put back in place? Or is the entire thing whiped out? Just trying to do the right thing.

Treelo, I don't know who you are and why you are able to wipe out my edit. Perhaps you would be so kind to explain fo me so I can learn how to do this right.

thank you DogMommy (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I monitor recent changes and must have hit your edit by accident. Please put your information back in and it shouldn't be deleted by me this time! --treelo _talk 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

RUMOR by LG (now LG RUMOR)

Hello, Treelo.
I just wanted to let you know that I declined your speedy deletion tag on LG RUMOR, although I am not an admin. CSD G1 (patent nonsense) is reserved for "unsalvageably incoherent" pages. You may want to read WP:CSD throughly, I know that when I first started out fighting vandals, I made a lot of mistakes with speedy deletion tags, and I don't want you to do the same. Please do not take this note the wrong way, I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't so much the content but the name which sounded a bit suspect so felt G1 would handle it. I'll give WP:CSD another good lookover and be more vigilant next time, thanks for explaining why it was declined though when I saw it was now a redirect I kinda realised that it was a real product. --treelo _talk 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

SHED NO TEARS

I'd like to put a temporary block on 86.142.202.168 as he vandalised the page Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Melee
you may check the history of the page to see the vandalism
thanks for your concern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beedox (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of that vandalism is too old and as nobody actually warned the user I can't take any action. I'm not an admin also so can't do any more than you. If they reappear then remember to warn them! --treelo _talk 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

Please don't leave drive-by tags on my talk page. The edit you reverted took a very clumsy wording and clarified it. If you have a problem with that, please improve rather than revert. -- Tom Ketchum 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Again? Damn, sorry about that. To explain, I'm using WP:HUGGLE to monitor recent changes and sometimes make false positives as I'm just getting used to it. Apologies again. treelo _talk 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to consider limiting your vandal-reversion to anon-editors until you get the kinks worked out. Good job vandal-fighting though -- sorry if I snapped at you. -- Tom Ketchum 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm keeping it to IP based edits so far which are blatant vandals right now. I can understand your outrage at being drive-by tagged, will try and keep my wits about me next time. --treelo _talk 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just happened to see this (using huggle myself) and I wanted to say you'll definitely want to take it easy with Huggle until you get used to it. I would recommend not using "q" (revert and warn) unless you are sure the edit is vandalism. Otherwise, just use "r" (revert). Believe me, everyone I have talked to (and myself, but I didn't talk to me... ¬_¬) who uses huggle has said it takes a while to get the hang of it. Once you do though... wow. is it powerful. Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And I figured VandalProof to be bewildering. After today and the amount of stuff that got thrown my way from all the false positives (and the fact that revert just doesn't have the same edge to it) after less than one hour in all I'm going to try and keep it down to obvious vandalism until I get more decisive or learn when the peak periods are, some of those editors are very quick off the mark. Thanks for the support, will try and get to grips with the power Huggle has, makes you wish for a sandbox almost. --treelo _talk 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

removing unsourced and repetitive material

Treelo, if you check, I simply removed a paragraph that was repetitive of a whole paragraph just a little way up the section, and that had no sources. This article is very long and unwieldy and we are trying to tighten it up while keeping it NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen38 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry but thanks for that info on my edits. Missed that one it seems. --treelo _talk 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Complaint will be filed!

Mr. Amok, if you don't restore my additions to the "hungarian language" article, i will make a complaint against you at the wikipedia administration. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See here for the complaint. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism by 206.207.248.161

Treelo, I'd invite you to review an edit of mine on your talk page which you reverted and warned me for. It was a constructive edit about a user that you have been monitoring and some further minor vandalism conducted by that user. It appears I was a victim of this "huggle" application that you are using, and I was reverted and warned as being "unconstructive".

As you had previously expressed an interest in the user mentioned, and had placed warnings on their page to the effect that further vandalism would result in additional action, I assumed that you would be interested - if I was wrong in that assumption, I apologise. However I would also suggest that you look again at your use of Huggle, as from comments here it is clearly creating an amount of resentment among wikipedians. All the best. ColourSarge (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're telling me when it comes to Huggle and the collateral damage created, I put it down to teething troubles. I have made sure others are aware of the issues me and most likely others might be facing in using it for the first few days or so due to the semi-automated method of revert and warn it uses. If I ended up warning you for it, that's something I'm learning not to do unless it's required and didn't mean to warn you for leaving a honest request here so feel free to dismiss it, it's happened to me before too.

Whilst I actually am interested in this anon vandal I removed your comment as I read it but wasn't actually monitoring the vandal's contribs actively, rather just reacting to the edits they made in pretty quick succession which is fairly normal for that sort of vandal. Just went and checked and doesn't seem they've done much since I gave that odd single warning. I get a lot more resentment from vandals than I do from genuine contributors which is a lot more than the occasional mis-revert and warn I make and I have only been using the program for a short while so the bad reverts I'm currently doing on occasion should drop over time as I learn it. --treelo _talk 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just believe that instead of pressing a button to revert and warn it would have been more neighbourly to simply reply to my message in the way you just have. Have a good evening. ColourSarge (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

generic section title

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Poor Treelo, getting hammered at while learning the ins-and-outs of huggle; maybe this'll cheer you, and keep you at it. Yngvarr (c) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Jumping Jiminy, a barnstar for failure! Well, I'll keep working at getting Huggle down over time, really is quite a beast of a tool and of course a surreal barnie will help with it. --treelo _talk 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

May's Random Diatribe

Adding watermelon to C++ could be constructive? You people have too much good faith. Anyways, I was about to undo it (well, people rv in seconds so I didn't really have a chance, but still). Someone went off on that "Get from A to B" things, and I wished to display why such activities are fruitless216.99.100.237 (talk) / 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather I warn you to disprove your point? Check up on WP:POINT. --treelo _talk 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you a bot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.5.146 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You sure revert as fast as one though!;)Prashanthns (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.. right? treelo _talk 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This revert of yours on name change might be an error. I advice checking again!Prashanthns (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted and reverted, noticed just after it occured. treelo _talk 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

He he! I was new to Huggle recently, and have gone through this! Keep going, trigger-finger!:)Prashanthns (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?!

I'm sorry, I did not mean to vandalize anything. I was just pointing out that some of the facts on that page is outdated, for example, the subject now blogs at evolvedrational.com instead of scientianatura.blogspot.com

Please let me know why this constitutes vandalism. Thanks.

Edit summaries usually help make clear you're not vandalising otherwise I'm left to guess and this is what happens. Sorry about it, where did you make this edit? --treelo _talk 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hey there, thank you for reverting that steady stream of vandalism to my talk page, it is very much appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, consider it a nice little thank you for the blocks and prots you did for me. --treelo _talk 10:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nelsons (Natural Health)

Hi Treelo, sorry for commenting here rather than on my talk page, but your comment there was removed pretty much the moment it was posted, so I'm not sure if you are watching it or not?

I'm a bit confused as to what happened on the Nelsons article. Another user deleted a big swathe of copy a few days ago, they had some valid points but I felt the wholesale deletion was an over the top response. Since then I've extensively re-written the article to address the points raised (both by that user and a previous editor), specifically to change copy so its not a direct (i.e copyright infringing) copy of a website and also to add refs to back up the copy. I think the article, while it could clearly do with some more work, is of sufficient quality to warrant being left in.

It looks like you reverted the article to the deleted version, but then reverted your own reversion. I've seen other comments about some issues with your system, is this one of them?

Thanks, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this is one. I managed to undo the warning and revert for the error I made this time though. Link did look a bot funny but all should be OK now. Apologies as usual. treelo _talk 11:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarrification and Kudos for fighting the Vandals! --ThePaintedOne (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing edits of Philips page

Treelo, I appreciate your trying to help, I am the owner of the Philips sites in UK, Ireland and South Africa and we do get lots of requests for such a UK map which I belive will add value to the wikipedia users who would like to find our company physically!

I appreciate your your personal opinion that it is an unconstructive edit, but unless we are violating a specific policy, I see no point of removing it promptly everytime we try to do some edits to this public page !

Could you please explain your reactions on the Philips page?

I'm doing that as it's a confict of interest to add things such as maps for products you make and/or directly sell. See WP:COI for the policy in question. treelo _talk 11:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting ip address and talk page

Special:Contributions/85.158.139.99 has requested on WP:ANI that your reverts be discussed. I do not see any reason why they should not, as the edits you have reverted do not reflect vandalism. Can you please explain that, and your reasons for not discussing it with 85.158.139.99? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest visiting Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and or locating an admin to semi-protect your userpage. I see that there are a few ip addys that are vandalizing it. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you also discuss this edit on SM's talk page? Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Treelo, I see that you've responded to subsequent comments on this page, but you have disregarded this request from 85.158.139.99. If you don't plan to respond, great - but please indicate that you decline to respond and explain why. The concern is that you're reverting (and rollbacking) edits that are not obvious vandalism, which has - in some previous cases - resulted in users having the Rollback tool removed. I want to discuss this issue before it goes further, and would invite you to discuss the matter at WP:ANI. Please respond. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded to the concerns at WP:AN/I, will explain further if I need to for any points people need cleared up. treelo _talk 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For the amazing amount of vandalism that you've reverted AND for beating me to MANY reversions, I hereby award you this RickK Vandalism barnstar! Razorflame 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pf, like I deserve it. treelo _talk 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you do deserve it, no matter what other people say about it. Cheers, Razorflame 14:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine... reverting did make up for 4000+ edits in a matter of days though so can't be all bad. treelo _talk 15:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Warnings on User talk:138.38.142.242

Can you double check the warning you left on this page regarding edits to 1449AM URB? They don't seem like vandalism to me. I think this editor has gotten at least 3 un-earned warnings today. Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed my bundle of warnings and apologised for it, still learning though. --treelo _talk 13:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here?

Why did you revert this seemingly good faith edit? Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be in violation of the 3RR on Phadia. I don't see any vandalism there and I think this is another bad AIV report. I think you need to be much more careful to the point of thinking twice before issuing any further vandalism reports. Frankly this is a problem. Toddst1 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ungg, I figured that to be a spamlink which I why I kept reverting it, just kept popping up and just reverted it each time. Also, an actual vandal was creating issues and simply didn't check who was contributing. More diligence in future, I just have to if I'm not to look like a complete idiot. treelo _talk 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Toddst1. I think that Treelo responded with the vandalism slur because I tried to re-instate a graphic when I had not realised that it was being purposely removed by her...several times! (thought it was a software glitch or something). No hard feelings.

Vandalsim

I assume you noticed I wasn't vandalism - I can see why you thought it was, no worries ;) 81.149.250.228 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits I Lost in the Revert Fire

Please read this CAREFULLY

You reverted an edit of mine that was I believe was quite valid. When I requested you to explain, you then reverted my request saying it was vandalism. I don't understand what's going on. Please explain.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked what you added and it was a good piece of information which I shot down. Even though you put it back I still feel I owe you an apology for reverting you twice so I'm sorry about that. A lot of vandalism comes from that IP so put it down as the same person. treelo _talk 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Treelo.--85.158.139.99 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Resilinece?

Why did you revert my edits (Persons, who have been called resilient)? Those person have been called resilient. here is about Frank McCourt, here is about Dave Pelzer, here is about Mario Capecchi--77.10.108.22 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Think I only got your edit which said "and many more" which is why I took it out as you get short things like that getting put in by genuine vandals all the time on other articles. I've undone my edit but took out the unencyclopedic "and many more" and I'm sorry about taking out the rest, just how rollback works. treelo _talk 15:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for undoing your revert. You were right to take out my "and many more". I thought about it again and it really is unencylopedic. Thanks again.--77.10.108.22 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism patrol, just some encouragement

Depending on the job, I'm actually not a big fan of using automated tools. I have huggle (and VP, and others), but usually fall back to the old-skool way of doing it. It's harder, and a lot slower, but it also keeps me from getting that frazzled feeling. I know that feeling very well. One of the reasons I don't do recent changes patrol very often.

AWB has a tool called IRCMonitor, which allows you to view the RC changes, and it lets you review things a little differently than huggle. Another nice script is at User:TheJosh/Scripts. He has both RC and NP patrol scripts. Those are real hard-core old-skoll; you have to wait for the RC to update, then click the diff, then decide. In the meantime, someone else might have beaten you to it.

Anyways, the reasons I like to doing things the hard way is that I find myself learning more than I anticipated. Memorizing the UW warning templates, the CSD categories, etc. Yngvarr (c) 16:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the only tool I feel any bit safe using is AWB and that still confuses me in it's odd methodology sometimes. I do like the old ways which'd be Twinkle for me, never handcoded warning templates or even a AIV report which is making me feel weird about the "lost art" of the hand-typed {{uw-vandal2}}. Know where you're coming from and actually sometimes just take ganders at IRCMon and see how things go but I love the script (or old school typed out) way as it still retains some of the charm of actually doing something and knowing that's you who's wanted it done. The learning is good, also means you don't get your talkpage swamped too! treelo _talk 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)