User talk:Andrewrp

Archives

Hi! I'm Andrew, and I like photography and computers. I am also interested in music. I play the violin and piano.

A Clean Slate

Please see my archive for archived conversations. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned

This edit is not exactly in the spirit of WP:BITE. This user isn't a vandal; he's just someone who didn't understand the rules and got angry when he didn't understand your warning. He's likely to be a potential useful editor once he learns his way around. Why not be nice to him? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I could of have been nicer. I can get angry sometimes. Also, this comment will NOT be archived, until I archive all again. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've archived things I just didn't want to look at, too. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still won't Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously

Stop reverting that guy. Now. I'm not going to block you for 3RR, but those edits are NOT obvious vandalism. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have abused your rollback privileges, edit warring on Electronic prescribing. You no longer have them. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 blocked the other user, and removed your rollback instead of blocking you. I probably would have done neither, but I have always disliked giving out 3RR blocks and whatnot. The only thing I can really tell you is DO NOT revert the fourth time unless there can be NO possible doubt that the edit in question is vandalism. There was a lot of possible doubt in this case. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EW using rollback is exceptionally uncool. Be glad you're not blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not easily. You could probably post to WP:AN, but you should know that if you had not had rollback, you would unquestionably be blocked now. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the revision history of electronic prescribing[1] User:Just James should have consequences similar to those suffered by andrewrp and User:Qelknap- he reverted 14 times just today.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about this: Qelknap was editing Wikipedia in a disruptive manner (200+ edits) prior to what you're labelling as an edit war.--Just James ^T/C 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can justify 14 reverts using rollback in a 24 hour period with that dif, or with any other dif that isn't unsourced defamatory information about a living person. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me put this clearly. On Huggle, I saw Qelknap's 200+ nonsensical edits to Parliament be reverted and he/she received their first warning. They continued to edit Wikipedia in a disruptive manner and were repeatedly warned. So their "colour and number" changed progressively from 2, to 3, to 4 (yellow, to brown, to red). I was never one of the editors who reverted their original edits, nor did I warn them. When the user was finally reported, I naturally assumed that there was consensus that the edits were unconstructive and constituted vandalism. I then proceeded to revert changes they made to Wikipedia until the case was resolved at WP:AIV. Perfectly normal practice. If you want more information, feel free to browse the history pages relating to Qelknap.--Just James ^T/C 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I thought WP:3RR was completely normal practice?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it was my determination that the edits were a blatant attempt to disrupt Wikipedia - hence obvious vandalism. If you disagree, you are well within your rights to do so. Know this: I never once felt as though I was engaged in an edit war. I simply thought I was reverting the edits of an immature vandal. Now I'll be off. Take care.--Just James ^T/C 17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing and vandalism is not the same thing. I honestly don't feel that someone who can revert 14 times without considering it an editwar or think about reading 3RR an extra time, or even without posting a notice on the talk page, should have rollback rights.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hello admin--I assure you, most of the time I am not joking nor do I make "joke" edits. I haven't touched an article for a few hours. And when I did edit, it was GOOD work.75.21.114.176 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk... per AN

Start now...

Please see my comments above. And yes, I still have rollback rights (for now).--Just James ^T/C 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]