User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2010/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:AndyTheGrump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Communist terrorism, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Communist terrorism was changed by AndyTheGrump (u) (t) deleting 11449 characters on 2010-09-24T01:44:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Communist terrorism. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 01:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Stop, take a deep breath, and just ignore him. Please work on other areas of the wiki instead. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there any point in trying to contribute to a project where good-faith reverts are treated as vandalism?
I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'd like to help. If I'm to be labelled as a 'vandal' by someone who thinks that 'Access Denied' is a valid user name (and doesn't appear to have looked into the past history of the article in question), I don't see why I should bother...
- I think Access Denied is a perfectly valid username...and you removed half the communist terrorism article. I don't think it was vandalism, but it also should not have been done without discussion first. Good intent, but the wrong way of approaching it, in my opinion. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 02:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree about 'Access Denied' being valid (to a newcomer like me, it looks authoritative), but I'll leave that for the moment, and explain why I made the revert I did: this article has been repeatedly reverted to two different versions, one of which was clearly on-topic, at least as I saw it, and another that was a synthesis that made little sense except as an attempt to advance a POV, and made the remaining segments of the article look like an afterthought. I'd agree that 'take it to discussion first' is a good general principle, but it wasn't me that wanted to start this argument in the first place. I seem to have got caught in the crossfire, for no better reason than having an opinion.
- I would have been more willing to reconsider if you had left me a civil note at my talkpage instead of harassing me at UAA and at my editor review. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't consider pointing out that a newcomer might consider your username a claim to authority over Wikipedia to be harassment. Perhaps you could explain why you chose it? And while you are at it, can you let me know whether you looked into the history of the 'Communist_terrorism' article before you labelled my revert as vandalism? Actually, don't bother. If this is the way that Wikipedia greets newcomers then you can play with it all by yourselves...
- In all my time reverting vandalism by newcomers (probably at least a thousand reverts) I have never received complaints about my user name. Plus, it's much better than my old one, which could be considered very mildly disruptive by some. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~; this will automaticaly append your signature. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK I forgot to sign my post. Is that the most important thing to you? More important than actually addressing the points I raised? Or are you going to let me know (a) whether you think a newcomer might find your username misleading (and if not, why you chose it)?, and (b) whether you read the 'communist terrorism' article history before you labelled my revert as vandalism?AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- If I were a newcomer, I would not find Access Denied any more misleading than I did Evolauxia or Runningonbrains when I really was a newcomer. Access Denied I probably would have found more funny than anything, seeing as I was a hormone-driven 14 year old boy when I started on Wikipedia. =) Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 03:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I do not think my username is misleading. I chose it because it sounds good. I will admit that I did not read through the history of the article, but I did skim the content you removed; it seemed like OK content. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- If I were a newcomer, I would not find Access Denied any more misleading than I did Evolauxia or Runningonbrains when I really was a newcomer. Access Denied I probably would have found more funny than anything, seeing as I was a hormone-driven 14 year old boy when I started on Wikipedia. =) Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 03:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK I forgot to sign my post. Is that the most important thing to you? More important than actually addressing the points I raised? Or are you going to let me know (a) whether you think a newcomer might find your username misleading (and if not, why you chose it)?, and (b) whether you read the 'communist terrorism' article history before you labelled my revert as vandalism?AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~; this will automaticaly append your signature. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- In all my time reverting vandalism by newcomers (probably at least a thousand reverts) I have never received complaints about my user name. Plus, it's much better than my old one, which could be considered very mildly disruptive by some. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 03:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't consider pointing out that a newcomer might consider your username a claim to authority over Wikipedia to be harassment. Perhaps you could explain why you chose it? And while you are at it, can you let me know whether you looked into the history of the 'Communist_terrorism' article before you labelled my revert as vandalism? Actually, don't bother. If this is the way that Wikipedia greets newcomers then you can play with it all by yourselves...
- I would have been more willing to reconsider if you had left me a civil note at my talkpage instead of harassing me at UAA and at my editor review. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 02:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree about 'Access Denied' being valid (to a newcomer like me, it looks authoritative), but I'll leave that for the moment, and explain why I made the revert I did: this article has been repeatedly reverted to two different versions, one of which was clearly on-topic, at least as I saw it, and another that was a synthesis that made little sense except as an attempt to advance a POV, and made the remaining segments of the article look like an afterthought. I'd agree that 'take it to discussion first' is a good general principle, but it wasn't me that wanted to start this argument in the first place. I seem to have got caught in the crossfire, for no better reason than having an opinion.
@Access Denied: Come to notice it, your first username was kinda teenage level connotation happy as well. Both it and this one amuse me highly. =) Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 03:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- "I did skim the content you removed; it seemed like OK content". OK for what though? For an article that presents 'terror' as integral to Marxism, or an article that discusses groups which supposedly espouse both Marxism and terrorism? I've no objection to either article in principle (though I'd have a lot to say about the first), but a conflation of the two is a synthesis, which is what the problem with the article was in the first place. In any case, you thought the content was 'OK', I didn't. Since when has a difference of opinion been vandalism?
And as for your username, 'it sounds good' is a week justification: I found it misleading. I'm a newcomer. Do you want to mislead newcomers or not?AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 04:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)