User talk:Dina

Correction to outliner software

Unless you know something specific about outliner software of which I'm ignorant, I believe you were wrong to revert my correction. "Principle" and "principal" are homonyms that are often confused, but "principal" is the adjective, so "Principal Attribute" would be correct. I considered that there may be in fact be an attribute of outline software called the "principle" so that a noun would be modifying another noun as in "card table". But I couldn't see anything to indicate that it was meant this way so I assume the conventional adjective form is needed.

Recent Corrections

Thanks for fixing the Lititz entry. That was, in fact, vandalism that was not done by me. The Bath entry, however, was not vandalism. I have reverted the Bath entry to the last edit.

alfred harth, study topic

http://www.alfredharth.de says that he studied art as a teacher, so could you please keep it like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.207.78 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Test 2 warning

Hi, I was wondering how to post the "test 2 warning" on the user who once again vandalized the Harold Lloyd page [1]? He's done it several times now, and I think he has no intention of stopping - he's also vandalized the Charlie Chaplin page about two times. He signs in under slightly different IP #s every time.

I have no experience with repeat vandals, so I was wondering what I should do to get him to stop. Thanks for your help. Esn 07:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But the user also keeps changing the title of the documentary from "The Third Genius" to "The First Genius", despite the IMDB link that I posted right near it. Also, in this edit to the Chaplin article (see the edits in the last paragraph) he just randomly switched names around and removed words, to the point that some sentences stopped making grammatic sense. Esn 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello! I just reverted a BlogSpot link, as per WP:EL. I think your bot caught my reversion and accidentally left a warning on my page instead of the vandal's. Would you be able to confirm this and leave me a message on my talk page? Thanks! :) thadius856_talk 01:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop your revert-vandalism

Your revert is entirely unwarranted, your methods unsound and unjustifed, and your wanton removal of content also qualifies as vandalism.

1. I have merely added in good faith a notable item to dab page Alice, and provided a verifiable source of WP:NOTABILITY for it since it's currently a redlink (diff)
2. This was part of an ongoing verification/dab/cleanup of the list of manufacturers and urls at mixing consoles.
3. The URL I provided for verifiability/notability was clearly tagged as <!--REDLINK SOURCE-->, so you have no plausible denial for calling me a spammer.
4. My edit summary was crystal clear too since it was the full text of my addition (diff), so you have no plausible denial for calling me a spammer.
5. If you disagreed with the verifiability source being a visible URL, you could have easily turned it into a hidden HTML comment for editors only -- even though that's much less practical both for readers sent there for this item and hitting a redlink dead-end, or for editors looking to stub redlinks.
6. Your reverting my edit wholesale (instead of amending it) deleted entirely my addition, thus you knowingly removed useful content from the encyclopedia, which also qualifies as vandalism -- you do not have the right to revert or delete content wholesale because you object to a part of it, that's throwing the baby with the bath water.
7. Furthermore, your citing WP:EL [2] is unjustified wikilawyering, because this policy applies to regular articles' "External links", not to a verifiability/notability source added to a dab page for a redlink.
8. Before calling me a spammer, you're supposed to check my edit history to see what my edit is part of, and see how wrong you are -- such as my cleaning up actual spam, or fixing the Alice Soundtech you later deleted from the dab, or creating a whole article, or removing actually useless URLs, etc.
9. You have thus violated both WP:REVERT : Dont's and Wikipedia:Assume good faith -- whilst assuming good faith on your part, despite your having no plausible deniability whatsoever, would at best mark you for criminal incompetence in the use of reversion.

Thus, your revert is entirely unwarranted, your methods unsound and unjustifed, and your wanton removal of content also qualifies as vandalism. You really have no excuses whatsoever and you're a waste of everybody's time.

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

-- With profound disgust at stupidy and wasted time, 62.147.39.202 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

62.147.39.202, maybe you should the write the article about Alice Soundtech before doing all this promotion. You could then establish this notability you are bothering Dina about and then it would be much less likely that someone will revert you for spamming. DVD+ R/W 04:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing any "promotion". As explained above, and as clear from my edit history:

• I was cleaning up the list of manufacturers at mixing console, fixing the wrong link for Alice mixers from Alice (dab page) to Alice Soundtech (full corporate name and currently redlink).
• And then adding Alice Soundtech to the dab page at Alice, which is normal since Alice is a big/old/notable enough company that 1) Someone will create its article one day, 2) Plenty of people will still wrongly link to Alice, even when the article will exist. In the mean time, a redlink on a dab page need to provide notability/source link to justify being there as a redlink. Basic dab work. All destroyed by an incompetent who can't tell an article from a dab page, can't check an edit history, doesn't know the basic rules about reversion, yet still throws the baby out with the bathwater like nobody's business.
• Besides, if I was "promoting", I *would* write them a stub, instead of just dropping a dab item and its source. It was just collateral work from my cleaning up the mixing consoles list, itself a collateral work from my having Phonic moved to Phonic Corporation and then cleaning up its "What links here", which led me to the list on mixing consoles, which sorely needed dab/fix/cleanup.
• And I'm not the one bothering Dina, she's the one bothering me during my work, because she can't be bothered to read WP:REVERT before reverting and removing content from the encyclopedia. You're defending someone who broke the rules and removed content from the encyclopedia, against a victim editor.

-- 62.147.39.202 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)