User talk:Rror

replaced taxobox image with own

Greetings. Thank you for supplying many nice photos and adding them to appropriate articles. May I suggest, however, that the edit comment "replaced taxobox image with own" may rub some people the wrong way. A better option is to state how the new image is an improvement, such as "replaced taxobox image with one showing whole plant" or "replaced blurry taxobox image with one having better focus." This would be more considerate, and make it seem less like you are simply discarding the work of others. As I said, I do agree that the replacements you are making are improvements, and am merely concerned that your choice of edit comment may give people the wrong idea. Keep up the good work! --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I understand what you mean. I'm certainly not pushing in my pictures for my ego, I thought I'd be honest about the fact that they are my images, so people are more critical. If there are betters ones, good for Wikipedia. The pictures present do deserve an explanation why I think another one is more suitable, guess I would want the same if my images are replaced.

Will be more verbose in the future. Sorry if I offended anyone. --Rror (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Just a quick note to say thanks for contributing so many top-quality images. Keep up the good work! Smith609 Talk 10:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric car edits

Hi, Rror,

Why did you revert the changes I did in the Electric Car section while I was still working on them? Is it an accident? In which case I will revert back. If there is a reason, please let me know on this page.

By the way, I love your photos...

--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was using WP:HUGGLE for the first time yesterday. Just checked all my edits using it, and you seem to be the only 'victim'. Must have pressed the wrong button ;) Keep your contributions coming! --Rror (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rror! Have a nice day,

--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reports to WP:AIV

Hiya. Thanks for your help countering vandalism. Please note however, that IP's making just one or two bad edits shouldn't be reported to WP:AIV. Administrators expect to see a patern of persistent vandalism, that's going on at the time of the report. Remember that your warning may stop any further counter productive edits, so it's only fair to see what happens before reporting. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting to WP:AIV is done automatically by WP:HUGGLE. I assume(ed) the mechanism behind it to be reasonable, and many wikipedians are using it. You should talk to the developer of Huggle about AIV reporting. --Rror (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Huggle reports automatically even with one bad edit? That's crazy. Okay, I'll drop User:Gurch a note. Pedro : Chat 09:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can follow. Just checked the last 7 IPs that Huggle reported for me, and all of them had tons of warnings on their talk pages... --Rror (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just be carefull

Hi, im not trying to be critical just a general note. When reverting vandalism, make sure that it is definatly vandalism. Just because a person removes a large ammount of text from a page doesn't constitute vandalism, just make sure you check it. Im particulary talking about Kofi Annan where the ip-user removed unverifable information about his name, and some other stuff about the pronounciation of the name. The question you need to ask yourself is 'is the person definatley purposly trying to cause disruption?' and in this case i would say its possible but its also possible that his edit is done in Good faith. Always try to give the benefit of the doubt. If you really disagreed with the edit, you could have reverted it, but you would need to explain why, and not tag it as vandalism.

It might be usefull just to read over Wikipedia:Assume good faith and WP:VANDAL. This isnt criticisim im just letting you know, so you know for next time. Dont take it the wrong way. When i started learning about vandalism and policy i wish someone helped me along a bit. If you need any help at all drop me a message on my talk page. Cheers Printer222 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of a complete section from an IP user without giving a reason seemed suspicious (often done by vandals). Left a note on user page. Rror (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is suspicious, so you should investigate it, but if it is slightly possible that the person removed it in good faith, i personally wouldn't delete it. On the other side of the page, if the person had a history of removing large ammounts of text and has been warned, then this would sugest that the editor is acting in bad faith, and you would delete it. It's just some friendly advice really. If you choose not to follow it, its up to you. Printer222 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!!

Just a quick note, if you find someone, either a new editor or an IP address that has vandalized a page, please place a warning template on his/her/it's talk page. This assists in notifying the user of his/her actions, and also assists other editors in notifying the editor as well, so we can all work together a little more smoothly. If you have any questions, ping my talk page Thanks!! Dusti^{complain/compliment} 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already doing that, have a look at my contributions: Revert/warn/revert/warn/WP:AIV/... Rror (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for your hard work reverting the unscrupulous vandals :) Gail (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldinho

Hiya Rror. I'm just curious as to why you decided to revert your own edit, here? The edit you originally reverted was clearly vandalism. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Did not intend to undo my edit - probably hit the revert button twice by accident in WP:HUGGLE. Thanks for spotting that. Rror (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah... I've never used Huggle before. Is "Undoing own edit" an automatic edit summary given by the tool, then? Thanks for the explanation, I was originally a slight bit confused. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, edit summaries are generated automatically. Rror (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page!

Hi! I've been watching some of your recent contributes to stopping vandalism. And your doing a fantastic job.

Though you are preventing vandalism, some people aren't satistfyed with your contributes. And are even willing to vandalise your user page at any risk. If you don't wan't your user page vandalised you may wan't to consider getting your user page locked. Once it is locked it will be safe from unwanted vandalism done by random IP addresses. You can request a page lock here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection

And please keep contributing to wikipedia by helping us put an end to vandalism. Thanks! Tedmund (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! My request has already been accepted ;) Wow, you are quite busy with Huggle yourself - keep going. Rror (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I received this message from you : The recent edit you made to Spearman's rank correlation coefficient constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Rror (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

actually I did not attempt to make any vandalism but made in copy-paste error (pasting a section on the whole article). I made my change again looking carefully to only modify the section. G.Dupont (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also noticed that - but too late. I removed the vandalism note from your user page shortly before you wrote this messeage here... Sorry for the confusion. Rror (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're Quick

That's three times now that I've went in to revert vandalism but before I can you've done it. Great job! Chuy1530 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: July 2008

Hello, Rror. You have new messages at Weeliljimmy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Good job with Huggle

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You're reverting very quickly nowadays with Huggle, and you're starting to beat me a lot, too! I award you this barnstar for that. -- SchfiftyThree 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your vandalism reversions are incredibly quick Anonymous101 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry I thought I was writing on the discussion page.--86.138.95.53 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate your fastness!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hate it that it that you are so fast with reverting, you beat me all the time. You earn this. Oh and you are Austrian, that's a good reason as well ;-) So#Why 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid Criticism Section

Hey Rror,

I'm new to this wikipedia editing thing so I may have jumped the gun by removing the section. I did lodge my complaint in the discussion page, as did two other users, and felt I had enough support and it was warning enough to go ahead with the edit. I still think the section needs to be removed, though. I think it presents an obvious bias against Real Madrid and I don't think the article should be a collection of recent headlines. Cheers boss! Gatienza (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatienza. I was patrolling the recent changes and the removal of a section without and explanation always looks suspicious. But it seems the removal has been discussed on the talk page and gained support. Please always provide an edit summary (for example: removing section as discussed on talk page), so it's easier to see that your edit is constructive. Rror (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He-Man Page

Dude, my edits are the truth. I provided a reference. In issue #47 of DC Presents, Superman is sucked into Eternia (the He-Man universe) and goes galevanting about with He-Man. In issue #48, a brief biography of He-Man or Prince Adam is given and when asked of his mother's whereabouts he says "I don't know, probably on Mars selling astro turf"

Septimus1337 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Lol. Sorry for reverting then :) Rror (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost as fast as Epbr123 used to be!

Seriously, can you take a break? Is reverting using Huggle basically the only thing you do nowadays? I do think Huggle users should let others revert too... SchfiftyThree 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now the vandalism crowd and the anti-vandalism crowd doesn't like me? ;) But is it really that bad? You have 2493 edits this month so far and I have 3976 edits... I'm just using Huggle to relax a little at the end of the day. Rror (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novus ordo seclorum

I think our huggle reverts must have gotten crossed. The edit here[1] by me ended up having you warn me for removing nonsense from the page, and your edit putting it back in here[2]. Knowledgeum (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seems so. I removed the warning from your talk page. Keep on huggling ;) Rror (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Okey, the novelty of barnstars is wearing off now :P 203.122.240.118 (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your huggle-fu

...is most impressive... --Blehfu (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong?

Whats wrong with a little harsh critism? The Nazi's did alot of bad things such as the holocaust but they also enhanced the cultural climate of Germany and respecting its pask yet its always looked at in a bad light. Pakistan has no desire of killing six million jews but it doesn't care about culture, there is a complete lack of it. What Babur said was true and still is now almost five hundred years later. Baburghazi (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Do you even live in Englewood florida? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.232.204 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check this user's userpage, he is from Austria. SchfiftyThree 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for watching my talk page!

I want to extend my gratitude to the users

for keeping an eye on my sometimes heavily vandalized talk page. Thanks guys! Rror (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMS

Some vandalism on the Jonathan Agnew and Vic Marks pages is slipping through the net, IP addresses are adding stuff quicker than we can revert it, and we semi-protect the page for an hour until people get bored or would it be overkill? Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. They are very persistant. Rror (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Lebanon War casuality figures

Hello. I saw that you reverted my edits on 2006 Lebanon War. This was not vandalism, and I did not realize that this what a controversial issue, nor do I intend to become involved in it. Usually, I edit spelling, grammatical, and misusage whenever I see them. Including civilians treated for shock and anxiety in casualty figures is simply incorrect. These people are generally not considered casualties in the civilian sense of word. If they were soldiers, I believe they could be counted as casualties. These assertions are also in agreement with casualty. After looking at the most recent talk page, it seems that there is not a consensus. Seeing as how there aren't figures like this listed in any other wars/battles that I have looked at, I believe I am right in thinking they are irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.140.66 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I did not revert your edits - my revert was on complete nonsense from the IP 78.148.132.85 ([3]). Your edit was reverted by User:Flayer ([4]), so just copy and paste this to his talk page :) You can use the 'new section' tab on top of the talk page to start a new topic. By the way: welcome to Wikipedia! Rror (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I don't post very often, but have been editing for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.140.66 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Catcher

You're kicking my but today... Talk about fast reflexes. Ndenison ^talk 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Taylor

You corrected something that wasnt incorrect. Brian Taylor does say "triple m rooocks football", "triple m riiiiks football" and "triple m raaacks football". I dont see how its "bias or give undue weight to viewpoints". You were pretty quick to remove that though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubert101010 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading it. Sorry i put that on the page. i didnt know i could use this. thanks for deleting the bracket and leaving the slogan. by the way youve probably noticed i logged in just then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubert101010 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hubert101010. The problem is that I can not simply take you word for it. Wikipedia has a policy for that: WP:OR. Furthermore, is this information encyclopedic and really notable (WP:N)? Welcome to Wikipedia and keep contributing. Rror (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Allen

When I loaded Wikipedia today, there was a bar at the top that said the following:

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Lily Allen. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Rror (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I rarely edit anything - either due to a lack of knowledge or the inability to find a mistake - so I wasn't sure what this message was regarding. I was quite confused to find that my changes were construed as having been written from a biased point of view. I thought that it would be proper to use the word "than", since that's what the author intended, despite having typed "then". Also, I thought it was juvenile to use the word "sucks" in an encyclopedia. Is "is anything but great" inappropriate? Also, I'd seen "trainwreck" quite a few times in the article, and once as "train wreck". I made it consistent by removing the space. Oh, I also added a comma where I thought proper English grammar would mandate one.

When looking at the edits, I was pleased to see that Katharineamy reverted back to my edit, noting "the last version was better".

I'm sure you have a lot of work, monitoring the changes that people make. I don't doubt that a lot of them have malicous intent. I have read much of your "User talk:Rror" section, and I can see that you're well known for working quickly. After seeing the seemingly quick revert you did to the Lily Allen page after my edit, I think I'd like to offer a suggestion. With all due respect, slow down and think about what you're doing before you do it. Even though the Lily Allen article was accurate before my edit, I felt that it wasn't professional. I see a general lack of regard for spelling, grammar, and etiquette in today's society. Really, that's all that my changes dealt with.

So please tell me, how was my edit not from a neutral point of view? How did I introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints?

I will certainly read the introduction to editing as you have suggested, but God help us all if that article says that spelling and grammer corrections are prohibited.