User talk:Serols

Editing...

Thank you!

Haryarok (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want your help in editing more information about Shrikrishna Keshav Kshirsagar

Hello Serols, pls help me in adding the information about Shrikrishna Keshav Kshirsagar ...

Small galleries at History of art

Hello Serols! Today I’ve added galleries at the page named History of Art. They have the purposes to make readers understand art styles. The edits I make on this page as constructive as possible. The deletion of them is very nonsense. Please let me add small galleries of four pictures at every section of this page. This isn’t a type of vandalism.

Hello 213.233.110.5, sorry my mistake - see here. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting. Now everything is right.

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		message Will1760 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please,...

...take a look... --91.38.31.227 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 91.38.31.227, see your talk page. Regards Serols

2019–20 United States network television schedule

Shouldn’t I remove NYPD Blue from new shows list from the 2019–20 United States network television schedule because of both huggle and rollback? --2600:1:D406:F698:BD77:450F:8510:C826 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2600:1:D406:F698:BD77:450F:8510:C826, it is better to use the talk-page before. Regards Serols

Barnstars for you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for reverting and protecting enwiki from Vandalism PATH SLOPU 14:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for contributing to Wikipedia PATH SLOPU 14:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for contributing to Wikipedia without seeking any recognition or reward. PATH SLOPU 14:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why you reverted my edits

Although I’m new but you must tell why you removed my edit of criticism of Hinduism so that I may reform and next time do not do mistakes. Thank you. Ashoka the idiot (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ashoka the idiot, you know what redirect is? Regards Serols

Sir, I’m asking about reversion of my edits whose none of the reasons you mentioned. Ashoka the idiot (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ashoka the idiot, Criticism of Hinduism is only a redirect site to the main article Anti-Hindu sentiment and you deleted the redirect. Regards Serols

Sir, I wanted to remake page on topic criticism of Hinduism. We have criticism of Christianity. So what is harm in it? Ashoka the idiot (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashoka the idiot: You don't need to "remake [a] page on [the] topic," because an article related to it already exists: Anti-Hindu sentiment; you can contribute to that article instead. Even if you are "remaking," the content you replaced the redirect page with is not sufficient and appears to be original research. I suggest first you try The Wikipedia Adventure and read about reliable sources, verifiability, and finally writing your first article. You can reach out to our Teahouse or the Help Desk if you need any help related to editing on Wikipedia. Happy editing. —RainFall 11:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the addition of the Keihan Uji Line section of the Keihan Main Line article?

I just wanted to incorporate the article. 2406:3003:2004:6A0:C5F2:FAEA:DFF9:3E8E (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2406:3003:2004:6A0:C5F2:FAEA:DFF9:3E8E, see here. Serols

I won't do that, I will just incorporate articles. 2406:3003:2004:6A0:C5F2:FAEA:DFF9:3E8E (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your vandalism. Serols

Regarding my so-called “Vandalism”

It’s actually for my English homework. We’re reading George Orwell’s 1984 right now and we were given a task to “change” the past as “He who controls the future controls the past...” and so on. I always make sure to change it back after so there’s no need to go all angry. San13flower (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello San13flower, please stop your vandalism. This was your last warning, you risk your account. Serols

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	This is for your outstanding performance in saving Wikipedia from the threat of vandalism. I appreciate your selfless service. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversing my edit?

Hello. I edited the political party of the current Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure for South Africa, as it was incorrect, and yet you still reverted it? Here's the page for Patricia de Lille, the minister, which contains her correct party: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_de_Lille YNJessyDV (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello YNJessyDV, sorry for my revert, I thought it´s vandalism. Regards Serols

Thank you for correcting it so quickly. YNJessyDV (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fiat 132

Murali Maggi maiaa..

Kalau lu buat nakal lagi, nanti saya cakap Yap. 113.210.176.17 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Almost every time I go to revert an edit, you've either already done it or have previously reverted vandalism on the page. Thanks for the hard work and for keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism! OliverEastwood talk 07:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Thomas Tobin

Hello Serols -

Regarding the entry for Bishop Thomas Tobin:

I am sorry to have seemingly had a tit-for-tat exchange. This was not my intent.

Can you point me to an appropriate resource for style guides/citations about proper listing news worthy information about the view points of public figures?

Bishop Tobin recently made news worthy comments, objectively controversial statements which were published on social media and spread widely thereafter. There is already a section of his page regarding his views. I do not wish to vandalize, only inform and memorialize. Guidance would be appreciated.

Here are a few citations, including the original twitter posting: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3]

Many thanks. 47.142.8.218 (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 47.142.8.218, I will help you, but please wait a little bit. Regards Serols

Hello 47.142.8.218, links in flow text are not allowed, see Wikipedia:Weblinks -> use ref-tags and all is ok. Regards Serols

References

List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events.

Why did you put it back? There is more evidence it would happen in the year 2100 then 2050. MeMike123 (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic

What's so bad in responding to your own report, saying OK but not signing it? That needn't have been reverted (I restored it and it was later signed).211.26.200.179 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 211.26.200.179, hi and ok are some of the most common words used for vandalism in Wikipedia. Since you did not sign, your post was deleted. Regards --Serols (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says the post got later signed, that is, already done by the time I posted this message. Did you see that I was responding to someone within my own report?211.26.200.179 (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the unsigned ok. Unfortunately you were unlucky. --Serols (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We both like to revert vandalism/offensive posts.211.26.200.179 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maildir

Serols, you wrote that you reverted my edit of Maildir "because it did not appear constructive". Even though the name is admittedly unusual the Notmuch email system, which I added to the list, is specifically designed to handle large, Maildir-based message stores. So, my contribution is constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:TheRealRalph#top|talk]] • contribs) 16:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheRealRalph, the link is on the wrong place. Please stop your edit war. Regards--Serols (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First it was "not constructive". Then the link was "on the wrong place". The link has since been replaced with a reference. Please stop desperately seeking faults. There is a difference between legitimately addressing vandalism and unfounded obstructionism on your end. TheRealRalph (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TheRealRalph, the warning was for your revert. Only at the end did you use the link with a ref tag, before it was only a link on the wrong place. --Serols (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DerSpiegelNein's edits

~~I don't think DerSpiegelNein should be banned yet...looks like editor is new and does not know that they should include edit summaries. OkayKenG (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, never mind. OkayKenG (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please

Hi Serols-can you please specify what in my edit of the Key Bridge page constitutes vandalism? I added easily verifiable historical information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthpatrol2 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello contribs, everything already exists on your talk-pag. --Serols (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House Mouse

Thanks for helping me out on reverting the 'RAT! Treated like dirt by many admins since 2016 DEAD RAT! GET LOST YOU DEAD RAT!' edits on the house mouse page. Do you know how to protect the page or ban the vandalizing editor? BlacknoseDace (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BlacknoseDace, see here. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like he's blocked now. BlacknoseDace (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

on vandalism

Hello Serlos

I found message as my changes being vandalism without further details. While per guidelines it can be a link vandalism only if the link is "disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling".

my changes were immediately reverted by yours when posted without any verification of content as per guidelines and tagged as vandalism. Was it automated ? Do you mind cancelling reverting after content verification ?

Rbtcpn (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC) rbtcpn[reply]

Hello Rbtcpn, please note Wikipedia:Weblinks. Regards --Serols (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serlos

Thanks for External link information.

I gone through it and still did not found anything relates to vandalism about info I put up in link.

I was considering to edit it again with same link. Would you consider to remove it again if yes then can you be specific if it ::is not personal ?

Thanks! Rbtcpn (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC) rbtcpn[reply]

Hello Rbtcpn, link spam is vandalism. Please take the warnings on your talk page seriously, otherwise you risk your account. Regards --Serols (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Serlos

you are keep defending your revert and being unreasonable. I still have not re-added and you have already made the case of link spam vandalism.

while you are still failed to mentioned the original blame of 'vandalism' by definition. However the rule of vandalism is still not changed.

Can you un-automate default mode of 'my argument is undeniable' for reverting any edits with 'vandalism' tag spicing with account risk threats and discuss the real talk ?

Any response without mentioning "disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate" part of revert back could be considered as agreed to original edit.

Rbtcpn (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC) rbtcpn[reply]

Hello Rbtcpn, you got all the answers, also on your talk page. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Are you from UK Referencer ? Roseirena (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

That was fun.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unreferenced material

Hi, I think you are being a bit quick with the rollback feature. How do you looked at the edit comments you would see why I removed this material. It has zero sources. If this is a topic you are knowledgeable on please return the material with sources. In the meantime I shall re-edit. Springnuts (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked a bit further, ( burial at sea) you put the message on the wrong talk page. You reverted an IP edit. However, my edit did reverse your edit so if you wish to restore material please do. However, please add sources. Otherwise it is likely to be removed again as original research. Springnuts (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Springnuts, you reverted a nonsense edit and and then you correct yourself. Regards --Serols (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serols - Life's too short. Springnuts (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report

Thanks for your work reverting and reporting vandalism, however this edit which you reported to AIV looks like a good faith addition of sourced content to me. Could you please explain why you believe this is vandalism in case I am missing something? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are supporting Inaccuracy on The Dover Boys

Why are you undoing edits to The Dover Boys article?

The anachronism can be verified in 10 seconds, yet it stands thanks to your reverts! Better to have a note than to be wrong!

If it is formatted improperly, fix that, but you are supporting obvious inaccuracies and degrading the usefulness of Wikipedia by lording over a page without benefit of fact.

From Wikipedia: “Not all edits by new or unregistered contributors are vandalism. Check out the content added or removed before reverting blindly, and remember not to bite the newcomers.”

Reporting others for vandalism without following Wikipedia Guidelines (ie reverting blindly without making clear your reasoning, and falsely accusing others of vandalism) is hypocritical.

Please help fix the problem, don’t be the problem. This kind of activity unfortunately reinforces an unfair stereotype of the know-it-all unyielding Wikipedia Editor who lords over the page and edits by ego and rollback button, rather than accuracy and community.

Hello 67.52.153.5, see here. --Serols (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep linking here but it does not link to anything that explains what you did. Your behavior is abusive and contrary to stated Wikipedia goals and policy. Actions should be explainable and beneficial, and when you hide behind auto reverts and links to non-explanations you do us all a disservice. Take the time to do the job fairly and responsibly or step aside.

[1] ttps://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/06/01/former-pittsburgh-bishop-causes-controversy/

[2] ttps://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/06/01/providence-bishop-faces-backlash-for-homophobic-tweet/

[3] ttps://twitter.com/ThomasJTobin1/status/1134784500372770817

[1]

[2]

[3]