User talk:Dina

Archives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stop your revert-vandalism

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

I have merely added in good faith a notable item to dab page Alice, and provided a verifiable source for it since it's currently a redlink (diff)
The URL I provided for verifiability/notability was clearly tagged as , so you have no plausible denial for calling me a spammer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You have thus violated both WP:REVERT : Dont's and Wikipedia:Assume good faith -- whilst assuming good faith on your part, despite your having to plausibil denial 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)[reply]