User talk:N5iln

Welcome! Hello, N5iln, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

TW info

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on the Firefighter article, but you need to learn more about the process of warning and blocking vandals. As much as I'd like to block everyone who vandalizes even once, that's not the way it's done. First you have to warn them on their user talk page. It is best to use standardized templates that can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Also read Wikipedia:Vandalism for more info. I have placed a warning on the user talk page of the vandal you reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Happy editing! Cynrin 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I performed the rollback with the WP:TWINKLE script package, which I presumed (apparently erroneously) performed the user-space warning automatically. If I come across vandalism in future, I'll research and issue the warning first, then perform the rollback. Alan 22:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't use Twinkle, so I can't help you with that. But I can assure you that you will come across vandalism in the future!!! Cynrin 23:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a system-wide issue with rollbacks right now? I've encountered several instances of vandalism but have not been able to perform automated rollbacks. Alan 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you are new here, I think you should be more familiar with policies before installing anti-vandal tools, such as Twinkle. Twinkle is a very powerful tool on Wikipedia, and there have been some problems with users in the past who have been abusing Twinkle. Real96 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, I feel I understand both the proper use and risk of abuse of such a tool. And your response does not address my original question regarding nonfunctioning rollbacks...rollbacks which are intended to remove obvious and blatant vandalism to otherwise useful articles. Alan 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Issue resolved...apparently Symantec Firewall breaks the WP:TW scripting. Disabling the firewall is necessary prior to using Twinkle functions. Alan 00:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV request

Thank you for making a report about 66.99.223.250 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you.

--

There has been no vandalism after the final warning. If any does happen, please report them at that time. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Kwaku Sakyi Addo

Hello, you added a pov to this article which says to see talk page for discussion. That talk page is blank. No discussion? --Natsubee 08:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments posted just now. Alan 02:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit count

Edit count tracking

Note to self

Before reverting or flagging edits as vandalism, check where those edits link to...things are not always as they seem, as a wise person once said. Alan 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem?

I wrote that Merck was the distributor of Captagon. Would you please tell me what's wrong about this contribution of mine? --134.155.99.42 21:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fenethylline"

N5iln: I posted some comments on IP 134.155.99.42's discussion page. I reviewed the edits in question. I think they need verification and also to be checked that Merck is not being singled out, but it doesn't look like vandalism to me.

User at IP 134.155.99.42: Please remain civil! This is really pretty minor, and we'll get it ironed out in no time. --Edwin Herdman 04:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Man. I'm really bummed that you got my Goodbye Blue Monday page deleted. I'm sorry that it wasn't as professional as the many other indie band pages out there. But it wasn't advertising. I don't even think there was even a link to their merch page on there. Just a page put together by a fan. Now I've lost all that work.

AfD nomination of Lock Soc

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lock Soc, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lock Soc. Thank you. _TheIslander 00:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Captivity of Canara Christians at Seringapatam

Friend, I am very much experienced Wikipedian having an account since the past 2 years. Can't use my account right now. I am fully aware of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and all policies. Thankyou, 122.169.10.190 (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

Just to let you know, for articles which are just blatant vandalism you can use speedy deletion. It's just a quick way of letting administrators know about the article, and saves an AfD having to be created. Hope that helps! - sorfane 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Spammer 98.231.134.88

...has been reported, hopefully it will result in a permablock. Regards, CliffC (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg

The item in question that you restored was removed by the individual who first placed it there. He added it as "controversial". When challenged (in the talk pages) he eventually agreed that the quote was not controversial and removed it, though without an edit summary (he is not terribly good with edit summaries). As the only person who had argued for its inclusion (the anonymous editor) agreed to take it out, consensus on removing it had been achieved. Magidin (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Alan (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cynthia Lynch

I don't know what to tell you. She was born in 1963. It doesn't matter what her GLORY page is. I'm thinking your the guy that used to live across the hall from her (the "Alan" not the "Allen" but of course, he lives in the same room as her), so give her a call and ask her yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.224.176 (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Inglourious Basterd title

Stop telling me I'm vandalizing the page and learn to read. When Quentin Tarantino explains his intention with the title in Cannes and I want to ADD THIS VALUABLE INFORMATION TO THE PAGE, I'm not vandalizing anything. I love the film and Wikipedia. YOU, however insult me and I find this infuriating.213.219.94.200 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and I was about to come here to say the same thing. How exactly are any of these edits "vandalism"? – iridescent 20:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad. The way the material was written appeared to be an attack on Tarantino. Alan (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

2010 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series

Don't revert my edits to this page. I am constantly keeping up to date on these deals. Jeff Gordon is RETIRING after this year. He has made a formal announcement on that. DO NOT REVERT IT! Landon Cassill will be his replacement for 2010 and Kevin Harvick most likely for 2011. BriMaster2 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It would have been more helpful to explain that in the edit notes, instead of in commented-out text in the middle of the article...doubly so since said commented-out text was ALL IN CAPS.Alan (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work in ridding Wikipedia of vandalism. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

210.49.71.241

Hi! User:210.49.71.241 posted a reply here: User_talk:210.49.71.241 WhisperToMe (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning you issued

Hi, Just to let you know a warning you issued here for this edit, may be incorrect as the editor was correct. Regards ^Khukri 13:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

-.-

Your'e telling me what and what not is unconstructive. You have warnings on your talk page already. Don't send me automated messages on my talk page either because it feels as though I am being adressed by a robot. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't be adding obviously inappropriate material to other users' pages, then. If you'd prefer, I'll happily manually add warnings and administrator notifications. Thank you, and have a wonderful day. Alan (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not appreciate you reverting my edit to my own talk page. Each user has a right to clear it at at their convinience. I will manually add warnings and administrator notifications against your name if you continue. Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as I will manually notify administators if you message me again. In the meantime, I strongly recommend against you adding inappropriate content to OTHER users' talk pages, which is what got you the original warning. If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with an administrator. As far as I'm concerned, the matter's now done.Alan (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am clear not to do such. However, you still have not explained why you reverted an edit to my own talk page. Are you attempting to make me look bad because I got an automated message? Dracula the v.o.d. (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said before...the matter's done. Let it go. Unless, of course, you'd prefer a warning for continuing this in MY user space.Alan (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Userpage Shield
		I, Eagles24/7, hereby award this Barnstar to User:N5iln for reverting vandalism on my user page! 17:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Abc518 (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And again --Abc518 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Copied from userpage

Hello Alan. Thank you for the message. I shall use sandbox in future. Apologies :o) (unsigned comment by 86.163.243.26 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

I moved that from your user page to here. ---Abc518 (talk)

Beat me to it...thanks.Alan (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

KKCK "Edit War"

That was me reverting clear vandalism. If you check the user's contribs he was also vandalizing several other pages. If it wasn't vandalism, I would not have used TWINKLE to revert as that would have been in violation of the rules to use TWINKLE. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I'm getting tired of seeing the same article appearing over and over in my workspace, with the same edits appearing and being reverted by the same users. I'd prefer to see both parties either come to consensus or walk away and let someone else complete the revision. To be completely fair, he was also cautioned regarding WP:NPOV since his edits were clearly non-neutral, and his commentary demonstrated his displeasure with the format.Alan (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Contact

Alan, how does one contact you? (unsigned comment by 70.41.217.95, 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC))

You just did. Alan (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, basically, the edits to my wikipedia page (Daniel Horowitz) are part of a campaign that in part is designed potentially to cause me or my family harm. The killer of Pamela has a web page run by a person who has stalked me and my family. She recently posted my home address, links to public sites but still links to the interior of my home, exterior of my home. That plus the "trashing" of me on Wikipedia, esp. painting me as a racist (which contrasts my entire life history as a civil rights activist from like, age 8, civil rights lawsuits etc.). It is intended to get people very angry and perhaps to do harm. Most of the edits are way out of context, some completely untrue. This heated up when I joined the board of a group opposed to parole (as a possibility) for all Juveniles. Why wouldn't I take that position, Pamela was murdered by one. I understand that there are two sides to any issue including this, but that is my side. Meanwhile, this plus other threats (personal harm) are what is going on.

Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.217.95 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I'll keep my eye on your page, and in the meantime, you might try requesting edit protection from an Administrator.Alan (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.217.95 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

DreamHaze has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism left by Aeftw on my userpage. :D DreamHaze (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Barry LaValley

Hello N5iln, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Barry LaValley - a page you tagged - because: Not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPM

This removal was more than adequately explained. Thanks, 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Had it been adequately explained, I would not have intervened further. Edit summaries are intended exactly for that purpose. Alan (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - sorry but any movement of reverts such as those shown here are going to look like a 3RR violation by both parties. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 06:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with that article...the other user in question was, to me, intent on editing it in violation of WP:NPOV. While I recognize the necessity of WP:3RR, I also believe partisan politics have no place in an encyclopedic work.Alan (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping to revert all of that vandalism on my userpage. It's amazing that I didn't have to revert any of it because you and a few other people kept beating me to it. --TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We try to keep up with such matters as quickly as we can. I was getting hit by the same user. Huggle is a fairly useful and fast-responding tool, though, and there were others jumping in and reverting.Alan (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009: The Final Destination

It is not bias; it is an expansion of a very short section. I am a registered editor here and know what I am doing. Read the section before reverting. 72.216.3.171 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Too many "expansions" lately have been vandalism. Sometimes I'm too quick on the trigger.Alan (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the recognition and the userpage shield. I believe you've done the same for me and I've seen your hard work on recent changes, so...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Please accept this token of appreciation for looking out for my talkpage as well as your work on Wikipedia in general. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 02:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullard High School

I think you should change the Bullard High School principal back to Steven Ford because he is the new principal as of 9-9-09. (User:SC2013, September 9, 2009 21:08)

Is there a reference to support this? If you posted one with the change, I missed it.Alan (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know: The principal of Bullard IS Steve Ford. This user is NOT a repeated vandal. Thank you for your time and effort!

I guessed. That's why I asked for a reference instead of blindly reverting his change. "Trust but verify" didn't die with the Cold War... ;-) Alan (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk to Steve Ford's son. Username is Delldude101.

Thanks for the cookie

 Ronhjones  ^(Talk) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Supertouch here...

Yes, perhaps I got carried away with the reverts, but how else is one to handle such obstinance? For me to be blocked from editing over this is absurd. I f you simply compare my contributions with the other user you will see that, first of all, I have many more contributions then him. Secondly, the vast majority of my posts are clearly constructive, while the other user commonly throws himself into the midst of controversy, with repeated reverts and blanking. Most importantly, I clearly attempted to handle the situation in a diplomatic manner even editing my own edits in an attempt to appease. The other user's blanking is obviously POV based.Supertouch (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be, but there are reasons behind WP:3RR. I've run afoul of it myself (see above). And to be fair, the other user was similarly cautioned. In future, I suggest disagreements be settled either through discussion on the Discussion page or off Wikipedia.Alan (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Couglin

Please note: WP:3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. In the article in question, a user is attempting to game the system by averting Wikipedia policies (specifically, WP:COI, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV). I have already sought resolution as you suggested. Regards, JeffBillman (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

With all the back-and-forth, I honestly could not tell who was reverting what by the fifth cycle, so in fairness I elected to warn both sides. If I erred, feel free to remove my warning.Alan (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem... I only remove edits to my talk page if there's a compelling reason to do so. (My user page is another story...) Anyway, reflecting upon my belly button, I realize that I probably needed that speed bump. Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my IP talk page and my guestbook. (H) Chevy Impala 2009 (Sign me!) 00:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: World Domination (The Re-Visit)

Hello there. Are you looking properly into the edit removals? --A3RO (mailbox) 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted a note on the user's talk page asking for information as to why they were removing the material from the page. That's as far as I've gone with it.Alan (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, while although the editor did not provide a proper edit summary in regards to the removal of content and the section entirely, the removal of that content, i feel, was acceptable. If you actually look at the text it's nothing more than opinionated hear-say and is clearly uncited. Therefor, I have undid your revert to the article and removed their warnings. Feel free to ask another editor's opinion; if a multiple concesus is warranted I will undo my edits. Thanks and Happy Editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 22:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I admit to knowledge of the topic extending only to the group's existence. I'll leave the content to those more versed in the subject.Alan (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your help in fighting vandalism! Happy Editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I also left a notice on that user's talk page here --A3RO (mailbox) 22:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Done!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar Thanks for all your help! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Move Cheap LLC

Hello and good morning. I saw you reverted the edits of this article. I assume it is because you saw the speedy deletion template removed. Were you aware the author blanked the page? That constitutes a good faith edit requesting speedy deletion due to author blanked and would have been an easier speedy. Please make sure that when you use rollback that there can be no controversy. Rollback is a great tool but can be misused and although this is borderline, I think you should've taken a closer look at the article and marked it G7.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the original author had blanked the page. Had I, I would have set the G7 flag.Alan (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yummmmm!

A3RO (mailbox) has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made him happy and he'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Confusion Larbanois Carrero with Larbanois Carreiro

For a typo miskake make the article should be called as Larbanois Carrero for Larbanois Carreiro. The article written under the name correctly and clean with the correct name appears.

Very well. I wasn't aware the article was being rewritten. Has it been redirected yet?Alan (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For a typo mistake make the article should be called as Larbanois Carrero for Larbanois Carreiro. The article written under the name correctly and clean with the correct name appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.206.0 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

re: September 2009

I was testing something, hush Elm-39 - T/C/N 16:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, just in case you didn't know about this, you can ask for protection of your user page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Of course that means the vandals you attract will come to your talk page instead, but it might discourage a few, and there will be only one page to keep cleaned up. Best, CliffC (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome information...but the speed with which the Huggle-equipped editors have been reverting vandalism make requesting protection a bit superfluous. I'll give it some thought, though...and thanks!Alan (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Chris in the hemel

What makes User:Chris in the hemel an attack page? It was written by the user. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My screwup. Too much back and forth between its originator and a vandal. However, from what I did see of the page, it needs at least a notability flag.Alan (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a User page. We don't do notability on those. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Chalk it up to my inattention, overzealousness, and a lack of caffeine.Alan (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookies.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the cookie but......

I checked my contributions and I didn't revert vandalism on your user page. It was Rich Farmbrough. I imagine the cookie was a snickerdoodle and it was delicious. :-) NeoJustin ^{(Talk page)} 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What, you need a valid reason to enjoy a cookie? How odd...(j/k)Alan (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you Alan, I will get the hang of all this soon! I never purposefully intended any vandalism and never will I. I hope that I can contribute many things as I have a great deal of knowledge in my head and have never put it down on paper, so to speak. once again many thanks, chris. (Christopher spence (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Mentally retarded vs mentally challenged

Seeing as how the article about mental retardation specifically uses that term - retardation - would it not be correct, in the name of consistency, to refer to it by that name throughout Wikipedia? If you think mental retardation is somehow incorrect, then shouldn't the article be renamed? I find it funny also that NPOV was cited - nowhere did I introduce a non-neutral point of view, but merely changed the wording to be more consistent. Surely it is less neutral to refer to mental retardation in a condescending way to be more politically correct. --82.36.136.3 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Alan (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a TY

for reverting the vandalism on Marriage, appreciate your contributions -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's vandalism per se, but there's a definite issue regarding POV...possibly COI on the part of the poster. I looked through the talk page and it's pretty well spelled out as far as what the consensus to date was. Hence the reversion. Alan (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Resumption of Vandalism?

We "spoke" last week following an edit war on Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari. A third party intervened, writing on that page's discussion page that no further action should taken without discussing it first on that discussion page. This page was left alone until a short while ago when this user blanked the section I had added. How do I proceed? I reverted it once, but will leave it at that for now. This user is accussing me of bias but simply uses this as an excuse to blank the entire section when his complaint is limited to one word. I previously edited this word in an effort to please this user and he undid that edit and then blanked my edit. I want this resolved... Please help! Supertouch (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DRR. If the other user is not willing to enter a meaningful discussion with you on the topic, this seems to be the logical next step. Just make sure you have all your information ready to hand, including reliable, verifiable references for the material you want included in the article, as well as the diffs showing the reversions and the reasons for them. Alan (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

huggling

Try and be more careful, you restored vandalism with one of your reverts. Thanks, nableezy - 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My bad...never saw it. Alan (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

All good, figured you just tried to revert 2 edits but I got to it first. nableezy - 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Fundamentalism change

ok, I should have given an explanation. But, Mr Smarty - look up Ram puniyani, and you'll find nothing related to islamic fundamentalism. He's a rights activist being defamed by hindu nationalists. Time I looked at your own changes with doubt!

I'm reverting the changes that you made!136.152.151.17 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Without an edit summary, all I have to go on is what's in the article. Especially since I cannot, and never will, claim expertise in Islam, other than a lower-division comparative theology course a few years ago. If this has induced you to include edit summaries, I consider my job on this article to be complete. Alan (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

I was in the process of rewriting my comments in a more positive light when you reverted. I have been editing on wp for years however this particular editor has made progress on Ching Hai slow and painful which got to me momentarily. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. However, all I have to go by is the snapshot of how the page stands when I pull it up, and the comments were much more in line with being a personal attack than a considered response...hence my action. It's impossible for me to see intentions, only results. Alan (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Corrected now although I note you didn't comment on the accusations levelled against me and another editor. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because I haven't reviewed them yet. Alan (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ars Regia

I'm sorry but ARS REGIA is not mainly a sales company. Our textile production is appreciated in many Museums worldwide and we don't need advertising trough Wikipedia. We published our picture for the only reason we have a big collection of pictures of liturgical vestments and garments in high resolution. Please let me know if I may at least publish picture, eventually without an external link to Ars Regia. Best regards. Pietro

The material, as written, appeared to be primarily promotional in nature. It needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style for inclusion in Wikipedia. Alan (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Unconstructive?"

What exactly was so unconstructive about the edit of mine on the 3 Inches of Blood page that you decided to revert? The fact that I didn't log in? I would have thought that getting rid of words like "very" and "major" on an oft-contented subject to replace them with more neutral expressions would be fairly useful. Simialrly, the idea behind replacing "death and black metal" with the more generic "extreme metal" tag was to make the article less likely to cause debate since the exact style of vocals the band use has been endlessly contested throughout the article's history. Thanks. User:Radagast1983

If, as you say, the vocal style has been "endlessly contested", there should be some sort of consensus established. Reading the Discussion page indicates the terminology is still subject to some debate, however, so changes would be subject to close scrutiny...if not by an editor attempting to maintain article integrity, by another with a different viewpoint.

I would recommend in future that a concise edit summary be posted with any changes, which would both assist editors with limited knowledge of the band in determining accuracy and demonstrate the edit is not simply being made to bring the article into conformance with one reader's opinion. Alan (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the changes. Rest assured, the contents of the edit were not as lazy as it's exectuion. I will attempt to stay logged in and leave edit summaries in future. Radagast1983 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Keith Floyd

I have restored the edit by User:94.195.129.221 adding the C-word to Keith Floyd, which you reverted. Wikipedia guidelines (@Wikipedia:Profanity) say that such words should be included in full, or not at all: "words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols". It's debatable whether the exact quote needs to be included, or the sentence that contains it to be honest, but while it's there it shouldn't be censored. —David Johnson [T|C] 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I see that word used too often in vandalism, and automatically assumed it as such. Alan (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Roc Raida

I removed the BLP template because he died today. The whole concept of BLP is the L, the living. Please reconsider. 71.63.102.251 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, a reference needs to be linked into the article showing his death. Alan (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I don't feel like getting in to an edit war with you, | link. 71.63.102.251 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Add that as a reference link in the article and you're good to go. Alan (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

South Africa under apartheid

Hi,

I made an edit on the article South Africa under apartheid which you reverted, and then you left a warning on my talk page. I honestly don't understand why you regarded the edit as vandalism. Could you please elaborate?

Regards, Dupont och Dupond (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content is considered vandalism. If there was a specific factual error regarding the material you removed, it should have been noted in the edit summary. Alan (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I understand that, but I don't understand what in this case was "Unexplained removal of content". I left an edit summary explaining what I did. Dupont och Dupond (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your entire edit summary simply said "removing other links". You provided no information as to why you were removing them. If they were spam, broken, etc., you should have noted that. Alan (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll try to be more specific in the future.

But I'll have to ask one last thing before moving on. Does that warning have to stay at my talk page? Because with it it looks as if I'm intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia. Dupont och Dupond (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:BLANKING. Nothing prohibits you from removing material from your own talk page, although it is considered bad form, as it makes for a record of who's talked about what with whom, especially if a dispute of some sort should arise. Archiving is always allowed, although sometimes difficult to set up. So, if you're so inclined, you can remove my note without running afoul of any Wikipedia policy. Alan (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your warning

Sir, what do you mean by edit warring. Did you see the edit history! I just reverted unsourced contents one time and added some source materials. --WIMYV? (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:3RR. Outside blatant vandalism, a user may only revert an article three times in a 24-hour period. I understand you are attempting to constructively edit the article, and another user is attempting to thward you...that's what WP:DRR is for. In the meantime, you might ask for semi-protection of the article pending that resolution. Alan (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	As I pour over the edit filters I am always happy to find you having reverted vandalism before I get there. Thank you for your efforts! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Alan...hello, Alan. I'm speaking to you, Alan

Alan. I haven't vandalised Wikipedia. I'm merely voicing an unpleasant truth. It is clear that the Admiral Stufflebeem (if that even is his real name) is a lying cunt. It's true.

I mean no harm. It's just that when I see distortion like this, I feel bound to correct it. I hope this has clarified matters. I'm going to edit the page again, best wishes.

See WP:NPOV for why I reverted your edits. If you can come up with a way to include your statement without using the expletive, one that is supported by verifiable and reliable sources, it can be included in the article. Alan (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

f

Fuck you you stupid shiteating bitch fucker damn you're a bastard whore I hope you die