User talk:OnePt618

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

Accusation of Vandalism

You recently reverted one of my edits under an accusation of vandalism (snake oil article). I could certainly see an argument that those edits went beyond the scope of the page, but the contribution was clearly relevant and similar to another contribution explaining the use of the idea of "snake oil" in music. This should have been an issue for discussion, not deletion for vandalism.

Existing content: Gypsys, Tramps & Thieves The lyrics describe that, Papa would do whatever he could / Preach a little gospel, sell a couple bottles of Doctor Good. "Doctor Good" is most often interpreted to be a kind of snake-oil elixir.

My contribution, on a different song, similarly presents the lyrics with brief content: Steve Earle recorded a song entitled "Snake Oil" for the album Copperhead Road, which implies that theRonald Reagan administration was selling snake oil. "Well ain't your President good to you/ Knocked 'em dead in Libya, Grenada too/ Now he's taking his show a little further down the line/ Well, 'tween me and him people, you're gonna get along just fine."

I don't care enough to argue about the content, but I certainly resent the accusation of vandalism, which is defined by here as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." This contribution was certainly not vandalism.

99.162.226.228 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text you added was "which implies that the[[Ronald Reagan]] administration was selling snake oil." Implications have no place on Wikipedia. If you have a reliable third-party source for the reference, you're welcome to add it again, but please add a proper <ref> tag. Thanks.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that Earle was the subject of "imply", which is acceptable if he has said that is what he meant to imply, but yes, it could use a reference. (I changed it so that the reader can draw inference, as adding a reference would not really add to the main article.) However, MY POINT IS THAT THIS IS NOT VANDALISM!! That is a serious accusation. You can certainly give it a "unreferenced" tag and revert the edit, but to mark it as vandalism in inappropriate and amounts to slander of me, especially as such accusations are logged. The vandalism tag is not a replacement for discussion of content. If you are the serious editor you are pretending to be, you should learn some basic Wikipedia guidelines...

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

Perhaps you might try that "careful thought."

Here is the full page on vandalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_blanking

99.162.226.228 (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I won't discuss this further, and any additional commentary from anon IP addresses will be deleted.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sanjay Khosla

You tagged this article for deletion under WP:CSD#A7. It quite clearly doesn't meet that, please take a look at the that link. Unless the article is a hoax (which it isn't according to the sources) or a blatant copyright violation (which I was suspicious about, and certainly some of the wording is similar to the source, but I don't think it's a direct enough copy to be a copyright violation, if you disagree with this take it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems), then I don't think it meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Peter 13:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Linuxmdb is Jeff Merkey, banned user. The articles that his is creating are puff pieces for his company. The articles that he is editing are BLPs of Novell executives that he has vandalized in the past. I have posted a note at AN/I. RhodiumArmpit (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider speedy deletion tags or AfD. Taking it upon yourself to blank the pages is not the right approach.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Can you point me at a template? RhodiumArmpit (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yep, WP:SPEEDY and WP:AFD will teach you everything you need.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zorats Karer‎

Hi there. I have a question. How was the edit before yours identified as vandalism? I am not familiar with any of the tools used on Wikipedia, but I will read up on whatever you may tell me to in your reponse. Thank you. COYW (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the whole article was re-written in a style not befitting Wikipedia's usual style. I recommend reading WP:MOS and for the author to propose such sweeping changes in the article's talk section first. Thanks.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie. Then, my question becomes: Was it a good-faith "fail" or was it vandalism? I will read up on what constitutes vandalism, as well as your suggestion. Cheers! COYW (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer!

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Rollbacker!I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Mifter (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]TalkbackHello, OnePt618. You have new messages at Jubileeclipman's talk page. Message added 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]I made some edits to the Cobalt page an have commented on the post you highlighted Jubilee♫clipman 01:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]