My apologies, but I am declining your request for rollback rights at this time. In light of the fact that until today you had been blocked since 2007 as a vandalism only account I cannot increase your permissions as there is simply no evidence that you are a trusted editor.
I would also like to know under what account you had been fighting vandalism with prior to the lifting of this account's block. Additionally, I noticed that you have blanked the unblock discussion from your Talk page, which is entirely your right. However, I would ask that you keep this notification on your talk page for at least the next couple of months. If you have genuinely returned in good faith, your editing will bear this out, and I will be happy to assess your readiness for rollback by March.
Again, my apologies, as you may have truly returned with the intention of contributing responsibly. I do not mean to dismiss this intention. Rather, I need you to establish a pattern first. Please let me know if I can help! Hiberniantears (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The movie was first released in the United States & Canada in 2004, not 2005. It was released in the Spring of 2005 in France, and a few weeks later, it was released in the rest of Europe. Australia, NZ, and Japan didn't get it until late summer of 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been corrected back to 2004. Clarence63 should have checked the IMDB source already included in the article to confirm that you were correct. Hiberniantears (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What's the problem here. I update the player apps/goals every couple of weeks and have been doing so for some time now. You're telling me I have to wait until the official website updates them now? This is new. You also gave me three warnings in quick succession before I even had a chance to read them. This is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.90.191 (talk)
db-author
Hi Clarince and welcome to New Page patrol! I' don't think we've talked before. Would you mind having another look at your message to User talk:Genius787? Normally when an editor blanks an article we just check to see if they wrote it or not, if Genius hadn't been the original author of the article he blanked then your warning to him would have been spot on. However as he was the original author, would you mind revisiting and perhaps withdrawing or rephrasing your message to him? ϢereSpielChequers14:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being unsourced, what was wrong with edit? [1]. It's not contentious so I don't see why it would be removed like that. The "unconstructive" warning on the user's talk page doesn't make sense either. Google the coach's name and you'll see it's legit, and this site http://www.roorats.org/ --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and undo my undo if you have not already, I was looking at the constant flow of edits coming in on huggle and I must have thought that it is vandalsm. Like I said go ahead and put it back but make sure you put a reference on it. Sorry for the incontinence. --Clarince63 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry!!, I run all of my posts thru Microsoft Word (To weed out spelling mistakes) and I intended to spell "inconvenience" and I must have picked the wrong one in the list of words! Like I said before I am so sorry for that! --Clarince63 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal of Roll Back on Shock Doctrine
Hi, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but the opening paragraph of Shock Doctrine is too long and unclear. The summary of the book should be edited down to not constitute a run-on sentence. Please tell me how I can apply my constructive edit. Osu.mann (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Osu.mann[reply]
Please be careful!
Hi Clarince! I just wanted to remind you to be careful when rolling back edits. Make sure edits are indisputable vandalism before doing so. Even if it's something like addition of unsourced content, try using a different method of reverting in which you can provide an edit summary. Best regards, SwarmTalk21:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was referring to. Huggle performs essentially the same action as rollback, but is much more fast-paced. All the more reason to take care to be sure that edits are indisputable vandalism before reverting them. Swarm(Talk)21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't necessarily revert edits just because they add unsourced information. In most cases, you should assume good faith and leave them alone, preferably tagging them with "{{citation needed}}". If you feel that the edit is original research or biased, you can revert it. Let's say an IP is working on an article and has made 10 pretty good edits consecutively and has spent an hour gathering the information. Their most recent edit adds unsourced information to an article you're not familiar with. You slightly suspect it's original research, but it's not blatant vandalism. By simply clicking "revert", you instantly undo all of their edits with no explanation and automatically warn the user against vandalism. See how that can be bad? An alternative to this is clicking the arrow next to the big red circle button in Huggle and selecting "advanced" from the menu. This can be done by simply pressing the "Y" on the keyboard. This opens a box that allows you to enter an edit summary for the revert. It also has a box to select "only revert the selected revision". If you don't select the box, all of their edits will be reverted as opposed to just that one. It's a good alternative to use when you're not dealing with blatant nonsense or vandalism. Swarm(Talk)22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Meat : "I've Got a Big Bunch of Dick," NOT "I've Got a Big Cock."
That's what the fuck is wrong with Wikipedia; too many idiots who think they know it all. When you try to correct them, they revert the edit without checking first to see that I AM RIGHT, and THEY ARE WRONG.
Please be careful with using Huggle to rollback changes as the edit you reverted on this article probably belonged on the talk page, but it was a legitimate concern about the copyright violations contained in our article and needed to be investigated. It was not vandalism and rollback should only be used in cases of vandalism. Thanks for your efforts and I know it is a unrewarding task, but please be careful. Camw (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiout
First Annual Wikiout. In order to give our vandalism, new page and spam patrollers a well deserved day off, it is suggested that all edit patrollers take a 1 day vacation from editing Wikipedia, on Thursday, April 1, 2010. (No, this is NOT an April Fools Joke) Go out, enjoy the spring weather, and give your wrist a break from using that mouse! Please pass this message along to other patrollers by adding {{subst:User:Wuhwuzdat/Wikiout}} ~~~~ to their talk pages
hello here is you new addition to your wiki family. As you can see i'm lost in space and need a mentor...Please write me on franklin.niki@yahoo.com for now, because i'm blond and need some answers how to start
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragomer (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am responding to your message on my talk page. I was simply clarifying the type of person. The edit was made in good faith, and I don't think I deserve a warning. There are many other examples, where that term was used for disambiguation.BellsFromSeychelles (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what happend in the case when somebody early do some hoax with page and page is deleted in eng wkipedia but i dont know who and why but when i strt create original article about that on wkipedia fr wikipedia pt. some contribute today see new page and they found old deleted page on wikipedia en. and put also article on wikipedia pt adn wikipedia fr. to delete also that pages but i put all documents about that i dont know why they do that please help Article is about Danilo Saveljic football player please help| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.206.191 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarince, you seem to be using Huggle in a content dispute. While not a good idea, the edits he is making are not strictly vandalism, as National Socialism is largely identified as the Nazi Party. This should really be discussed on the article's talk page, not reverted and warned over. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly warning
Hi! I was up early this morning and noticed that you had read the warning against continuing to use copyrighted images on your user page, but then you added a copyrighted image to your user page. My first thought was, this is a user who is deliberately breaking not just Wikipedia's rules but also federal laws, and I should block this person from editing. But then I thought, here it is, the start of a beautiful, snowy day... why not give one final chance? I'm going back to bed- it's a snow day! When I wake up, in a few hours, I'll check this user page again, and if there's copyrighted material on it, that's when I'll block it. Have a lovely day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)10:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the need for a bot to remove vandalism, but please be VERY careful with it removing good faith edits. I would suggest that this bot not be allowed to revert edits unless the IP or username has previously been declared to vandalize as observed by a human except in the case of brand new accounts with no previous unreverted edits or in the case of a very well defined vandalism algorithm. I am sure this has been discussed before many times about keeping a human in the loop with reverting bots.. good luck and thanks!
