User talk:Doulos Christos: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:02, 17 February 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Doulos Christos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

omg im soo sorry about my unconstrucive edits plz forgive me

IM NOT FORGIVING YOU.... YOU FAG BUTT MUNCH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.49.186 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to my recent unconstructive edit on Portsmouth Grammar School, how can the hockey team have been unsuccessful on both occasions when we had a victory in the first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.41.45 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Single-gender worlds

as can be seen i meant to type this: The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal. Sadly i typed this: the crime and the glory of commander suzdal. This mistake would have took me all of 30 seconds to relieze and correct. However you decided to leave me a message instead. For future reference why dont you spend more time on trying to fix articles then bug editors. A simply internet search would have found my error and you could have corrected it. instead you went with a revert. THIS IS NOT APPRECIATED ONE BIT BY ANYONE EVER!! Let me ask you something: how could you possible know every single sci-fi story ever written!? the answer is: you cant. If you know even the slightest amount of knowledge about this field you wouldnt have reverted my edit. obviously you spent all of 1 second looking at what i did and then reverting it.

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 06:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Doulos Christos (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bling

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your good work keeping the encyclopedia clean. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 12:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! (...or ma'am?) Doulos Christos (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Why did you revert my edit, it was very logical to the talk section of Arizona??? Metro Sex (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit.

Hi, you made this edit which actually reverted a reversion of vandalism (thus restoring the vandalism). I reverted your edit using Twinkle, but I wanted to let you know that I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to vandalize that page and simply got confused in the chain of reverts (as I have done many times myself). In any event, your edit history shows a strong record of fighting vandalism, so thanks and keep up the good work. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, it's my first time trying out Huggle. I'll take a look over the rest of my contributions to make sure I did okay the rest of the time. Thanks for letting me know. Sorry about that! Doulos Christos • talk 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

WikiThanks

Thank you for the quick revert on my guestbook. :) Queenie ^Talk 17:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! :) Doulos Christos ♥ talk 19:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Why did you remove my warning here?--Giants27 T C 01:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, looks like we both tried reverting and warning at the same time and WP:HUGGLE got confused. Sorry! :) Doulos Christos ♥ talk 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, was just curious in your reasoning. Thanks!--Giants27 T C 03:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Please stop reverting my edits at Bandit (disambiguation) and tagging me as a vandal. These have all been good faith edits to move the page, as discussed on the discussion page, to have a separate article for the television series. The automated revisions can be incredibly frustrating as we are all working to improve this project.--Stadler981 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out why that was happening - because you were inappropriately doing a cut-and-paste move. I asked at WP:AN that someone fix the pages that are messed up now and maybe they can explain why what you are doing is incorrect. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 02:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, though I would be remiss to not point out that for a novice user to be frustrated, confused, labeled as a vandal, and fairly insulted for attempting good faith edits in a way that was the prior standard, is probably not the best for a project hoping to draw help from everyone. Obviously that change was not up to you, but please be understanding and perhaps less immediately condemning and belittling to people who are trying to help.--Stadler981 (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hanssen

I understand your general suspicion of vandalism in the case of the Hanssen article, however, I question what constitutes the informational value of Hanssen's sexual preferences. Whether or not he shared sex video tapes or had contacts with prostitutes does not represent an informational value. On which ground would you leave this information there, then? A biography should not the place where ALL information about the respective person are gathered - but if so, why not include his eye color and hair color? Simply because the information about particular aspects of a person's life is there, i.e. available, and accessible somewhere (and justifiable through references), does not state anything about the informational value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.100.126.154 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:79.67.141.243

this is a sock of a banned user harassing always the same person. I reported him to AIV for inmediate blocking --Enric Naval (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Howdy! One of the downsides of using templates is that it's often really obvious that you're just using a template. For example, User:75.48.124.175 vandalized the Robert Gates article, and it's very very obvious that he didn't consider 'what the crap' to be a constructive edit, but your templated warning suggests that might have been possible. A thought, consider trading a fancy, feature rich warning that screams 'I am a robot!' for a short, human bit of text. It might connect with the person at the other end of the keyboard better, and might be the little thing that turns someone into a productive editor. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point but, if I were to be more firm, someone would surely appear here saying I was being too firm. My hope is that the templates have been deemed moderate enough to appease everyone. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were writing automatic revert bots that didn't involve human judgment, then I would agree with you, but we're doing the work we do here specifically because we _aren't_ bots. If you have to use templates (and while personally, I'm not a big fan, I think they do more harm than help) would it be possible to have more than one so you can use one that's appropriate to the situation? Either way, best regards - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally see what you are saying. I also have an extensive watchlist of commonly-vandalized pages (thousands actually) and am still seeing far too much vandalism escaping the first wave of recent change patrollers. The bots and the bot-like humans are simply not doing a good enough job. Being careful about what I say to someone who says "Tyler is gay" or "this is crap" is going to cause the holes in that first wave to open further. Maybe that's just my perception but it is what it is. If the anti-vandalism bots get better - or if some flagged revisions methodology is properly implemented - maybe I will start to agree with you. Regardless, I hope your vision of quickly reforming blatant vandals can be a reality someday. Doulos Christos ♥ talk 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about other user's removal of deletion tags

Just so you know, if someone else removes a tag from an article and also changed the content of the article, you should manually readd the tag and don't revert the added content as well. Also, if the user blanks a page they created after a speedy tag was added, you should just add

Hello, Doulos Christos. You have new messages at Db-g7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

to it instead of reverting. Just wanted to let you know. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whats your problem, i was cleaning up the page. i made the original article in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youchia32 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azad university IR in oxford

Hiya!

On the article "Azad university IR in oxford"* you reverted the editor who blanked the page back to your deletion request. No big deal, but I thought you'd like to know that if the only author of a page ** blanks it, it's considered a request for deletion anyway. You needn't bother with that in the future. :) Kylu (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* - Which I've since deleted, no point in wikilinking to it.

** - Not including article tagging, stub templates, disambiguation, interwiki templates, article name moves, or other edits which don't directly affect the content of the page.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 With regards to my recent unconstructive edit on Portsmouth Grammar School, how can the hockey team have been unsuccessful on both occasions when we had a victory in the first?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.88.41.45|130.88.41.45]] ([[User talk:130.88.41.45|talk]]) 12:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+==Single-gender worlds==
+as can be seen i meant to type this: The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal. Sadly i typed this: the crime and the glory of commander suzdal. This mistake would have took me all of 30 seconds to relieze and correct. However you decided to leave me a message instead. For future reference why dont you spend more time on trying to fix articles then bug editors. A simply internet search would have found my error and you could have corrected it. instead you went with a revert. THIS IS NOT APPRECIATED ONE BIT BY ANYONE EVER!! Let me ask you something: how could you possible know every single sci-fi story ever written!? the answer is: you cant. If you know even the slightest amount of knowledge about this field you wouldnt have reverted my edit. obviously you spent all of 1 second looking at what i did and then reverting it.
 ==Your request for rollback==