User talk:Fieldday-sunday
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Defour
Can't keep up with the edits on this one. Can you get someone to lock it until after the transfer deadline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.164.226 (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
so what? i made a mistake, you jerk. fine. i guess detergent isn't used to make pretzels. fine!!!!! you don't have to act like a know-it-all PIG about it tho. i get hydrosulfuric acid and detergent confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.207.189 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Biocentrism[edit]
The edits you have twice reverted on the Biocentrism page are not vandalism (According to Wikipedia, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.") And neither is it an insertion of personal opinion or analysis: the edits are facts reported with complete citation. If you persist in obstructing constructive additions to this page I will register a formal complaint against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.225.54 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
99 songs of the revolution[edit]
That was no vandalism that was pure fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.32.98.126 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Mark Belling[edit]
You told me to: "please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page." I did that; YOU did not. I mentioned the Hispanic Controversy edit a LONG time ago on the talk page, and I indicated why I made the language edit in the edit history. Don't throw rocks in glass houses please.
Ohio[edit]
August 4, 2009[edit]
Dear Fieldday-sunday,
Please allow us to post information about our U. S. House Representative, Steven C. Latourette so that we can read what our congressman's policy choices are.
Yours Hallesister (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)HallesisterHallesister (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the whole point of wikipedia was to add facts surrounding topics, I had first hand experience regarding operation Shhh!cago and have extensive knowledge of the facts surrounding the incident. I challenge you to test my knowledge of this incident, as I am quite certain I know vastly more than you about. I don't see how you can block me for making improvements to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.32.254 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
hi, you some how just instantly changed my posting, despite the fact that it was a legitimate fact. so, I am going to post it back now, and I'd thank you to refrain from editing things based on hunches you may or may not have, it's very discriminatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.32.254 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It is all very well and good to hide behind the name Fieldday-sunday, why not be open and honest and give us your real name? What gives you the right to dictate who does what on wikipedia, who gave you the absolute power to decide? If you are so certain my post are not relevant then let me have a wikipedia contact who can look at your complaint with unbiased reason. I am a photographer and cover a whole range of images of Monmouthshire, politicians, music and various events. Who are you to act as judge and jury? Go on put your keyboard where your mouth is and give me a contact to arbitrate about your unfair appraoch. Remove me and you remove the BBC? Peter Garwood (my real name not some wierd pseudonym) (Pgarwood (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
What the hell is wrong with you?My edit was completly factual and you reverted it to thr incorrect bullshit!WTF? What is wrong with me placing a website of Bog Snorkelling pictures on the page. The BBC does just the same and only allows use of those images for a fee so are they not considered commercial? Come off your high and mighty horse. Give me one good reason why you should allow the BBC and not me to promote my site. Peter Garwood (Pgarwood (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC))
Why did you revert my edit to the cash for clunkers page? How was it unconstructive? There was no current criticisms of the program so I decided to start a section. 65.247.225.161 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I did provide informative edit summary. If you are not intelligent enough to understand it, why dont you go to sleep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.121.20 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I wonder if you could shed some light on your removal of my post? It is not advertising or promoting anything - it is an archive of all the shows for that label? I understood that posts had to be informative and help the reader understand the subject more - is this not the case? Please let me know if there is something I can do to make it more relevant. Many thanks,
Lauren Milligan (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Lauren Milligan
You loser. What a truly sad and pathetic life you lead... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.164.226 (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
You undid my edit in politics in the Simpsons. How is Homer voting for Obama not relevant to that? Maybe I didn't write it up correctly, but surely the point should be in the thread? It's one of the most direct political statements the Simpsons has made 81.157.46.127 (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia even work anymore? Are you just bored?
Could you please justify your revert of my edit to the Big Government page and accusations of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.13.12 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
What a sad life you must have, editing articles when you don't know the facts or people concernted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltzingmatilda57 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If you believe that anything in Wikipedia is wrong, then be bold and change it. Do be prepared for some opposition to your edits from time to time though.
Personally, I have always believed that many of the statistics included in certain articles constitute original research, as someone has to work them out. The section you are referring to has no direct reference for the information.
Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Parmjit Dhanda entry and pineapplemystery[edit]
I can't discern any way of responding to the message from Fieldday-sunday in like fashion, so I'll just say that my edit (in response to the abovementioned pineapplymystery who deleted my passage about the PD website refusing to permit critical comments was, in my opinion, *extremely* constructive, but you may need to be a resident of Dhanda's constituency, Gloucester, to fully appreciate that. I will resist the efforts of pinapplemystery or anyone else to censor information about http://www.parmjitdhanda.co.uk/ and it's blatantly onesided agenda.
Edit: it's obviously the view of Fieldday-Sunday that my addition to the Parmjit Dhanda Wikipedia entry is 'vandalism'. I clearly disagree. I believe the entry is incomplete if it doesn't cover the iron control his website admin exercise over comments. Now, I am threatened with having my editing privileges removed if I don't permit Matthew Gilson (a PD staff member who was was also talked into standing as a 'paper' candidate in the last city council elections, another sign of Labour being on it's last legs in Gloucester) to delete my contribution, and leave it incomplete. And this could all be avoided if they simply *didn't* impose de facto censorship on the few people who can even be botrhered to take an interest in their site.
Edit 2: I still have no idea how to contact you directly, in the same way as you send warnings to me. I also have no idea whether people like Matthew Gilson know how to do this, and complain to you directly, or if you are doing all of this off your own bat. You certainly seem to be very busy, judging by current 'contribs', but I wonder if you have time to exercise carefully considered judgement, or observe a very Manichean discipline on edits instead? I *do* know that if I am not to be allowed to set the record straight on our Gloucester branch of Labour's clampdown on speech here, I will do so where it cannot be ignored. It didn't have to be so. TrollhunterX (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
rollback[edit]
Does Wikipedia even work anymore? If you want people to be bold and change it then why ignore the content of what they are doing? My factual corrections to a tabloid set of mistatements in an article has been pointlessly and needlessly undone by someone who never knew that person, their family, or the facts I am trying to set straight. Some admin in Wales rejected every change for no reason. Care to give informational support? Or are you just bored?
I didn't know Wikipedia admins were rejecting information "not to their taste".I'll be sure to document in my cotent article elsewhere how "factual" wikiepedia was in their approach to deceiving vistors about this entry.
The sandbox is broken. The talk page is empty of action items. The supposed avenue of conduting wikipedia suggested actions is null and void. Why is this?
The suggestion of the feedback to go to the talk page is a dead end as there is nothing but a stub with no action possible but to join ANOTHER unconnected project??????? How does the factual mistatement of these items get fixed when Wikipedia itslef refuses to allow the very changes it deynamics were born to fix?
Hello Fieldday-sunday.
I have noticed that you revert a lot of vandalism. Have you heard of rollback before? It allows a user to revert vandalism much faster than by undo-ing it. I think you should ask for it. I am not an admin, or I would give it to you myself. I wrote this just to let you know about the existence of rollback because before someone randomly gave it to me, I did not know it existed. If you ask for it, you should have no problem getting it, as you clearly have an excellent grasp of what constitutes vandalism. Good luck, and may the vandals fail... J.delanoygabsadds 13:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Vandal Tools[edit]
Hi, Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle a tool that helps with dealing with vandalism to rollback, tag, revert etc & issue warnings ....works fine in XP on Firefox (But doesn’t work with MS Internet Explorer yet). Good luck!!
--Badgernet (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sir John Leman ("vandalism"?)[edit]
My edit on the sir john leman high school page, which you claimed constitued vandalism, was nothing but an honest account of the school from the veiw point of not just one but many students. Unlike what is already on the page, what i wrote was true, as opposed to propoganda. You have no right to dismiss the opinions of those who have first hand experience of life within the school as "vandalism". Nothing that was presented was anything but truth, and what i added simply revealed the facts about the school as opposed to the misinformation that was present. I was under the impression that wikipedia was about providing accurate and realistic information, not presenting people with lies and cover-ups about what life is really like within certain establishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.213.243 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008[edit]
==Thanks for catching that. I thought I had it, I guess I need more time in the sandbox before coming out to play in the big world.I55ere (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: July 2008[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Robbie Keane[edit]
Hi. YNWA and RAWK said he signed today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.116.212 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Teth[edit]
The edits made on the page about Charles Perkins are completely within Wiki's terms. I removed biased content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.226.67 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thanks forreverting the Vandalism ealier today.
II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 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 their talk page with a friendly message.
II MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism warning[edit]
Your removal of a POV tag is against Wikipedia policy, and constitutes an act of vandalism. Please do not remove POV tags until they have been completely discussed in the article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
John Michell[edit]
My edit contained no incorrect information, and was not vandalism. Please could you state what you find objectionable, rather than just removing my edit. Better still, please check the information out for yourself, and then, if you have anything to raise, come to the Discussion page for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.237.105 (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hes just some looser whos life work consists of preventing vanalism on this blog.
Ray comfort says the banna proves god[edit]
Do you have a problem with what ray says?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism definition[edit]
Can you show me the vandalism for this user, who you reported to AIV? Tan ǀ 39 16:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Sileby[edit]
PresleyDotson (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Why on earth is the insertion of Chris Needham into Sileby vandalism? Is the fact that I live in Burton upon Trent vandalism? Is the fact that President Bush lives in the White House vandalism? Please tell me why you have seen fit to charge me with vandalism. I await your interesting answer.
LOLOLOLOLOL noob hax i r gon b funni lololol soisoisoisoisoisoi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.241.49 (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
AIV[edit]
Thank you for making a report 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, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If they continue to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! PeterSymonds (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Google Vandalism[edit]
Everytime Google alerts the world to a special event the vandals come out in force to hit Wikipedia. What do you think about someone putting a temporary lock on any Google-alerted pages early to keep the vandals at bay? --Cdman882 (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Rock music WikiProject[edit]
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Request for help[edit]
Please see the John Michell (Writer) discussion page. The anon. user you admonished for vandalism is doing it over and over again in an effort to slander this author. Thanks for your help. SageMab (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice[edit]
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
st anger[edit]
Why do you keep changing the st anger page back, all i want to do is add some notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjj (talk • contribs) 12:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I replaced your {{db-a3}} tag on the Stephen Story page with a {{db-a7}} tag. Since the author of the article blanked the page himself, this constitutes a good-faith effort on the part of the user to delete page.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Huggle[edit]
You and Ale jrb (talk · contribs) seem to be stepping on each others' edits. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a hint; I guess the contribution of Moviemagic123 [1] wasn't vandalism - I've emptied Talk:Article again because the September 11 Attacks havn't anything to do with Article. Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Good work[edit]
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| You do good work with your AIV reports. It makes my job easier. SmashvilleBONK! 21:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
unconstructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilgrim18 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Huggle edits[edit]
Hi Fieldday-sunday. You're doing lots of excellent vandalism reverting. Just a reminder to double-check the Huggle edits because occasionally a mistake will be made. Thanks! Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Three revert rule[edit]
I would remind you about the three revert rule at British armed forces. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Vedanta's HQ is in Mumbai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Percybiz (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not according to the company's website.[2] Or the London Stock Exchange.[3] The company may have a significant presence in Mumbai, but its official headquarters is located at 16 Berkeley Street, Mayfair, London. — Satori Son 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for Bloc Party, but watch out![edit]
...You're doing a good job, but just watch out because you have far surpassed the 3RR rule. Don't know if this is different for vandalism. Also, Do Not Feed The Trolls! I read this last night for the first time, and it may apply to this situation.
Thank you for your continuing help!--SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 15:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Bad revert[edit]
Hi! Please look at [4]. Excirial has been having the same problem with Huggle recently. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism by Nmcg1993[edit]
Nmcg1993 vandalised the Serious (TV series) page as well, after you gave Nmcg1993 a final warning over vandalising Natural evil. Autarch (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
diolch am eich cefnogaeth[edit]
I hope I wrote that correctly, but I am grateful for the support in deleting the vandalism on my talk page so quickly. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
HG[edit]
Hey, Huggle hasn't been working for me in the last few days, I even redownloaded it, and it still doesn't. I get an error message before it even loads up. Did you have this problem? If so, how did you fix it? Ctjf83Talk 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Star[edit]
|
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For the vandal fighter who's always beating me to reverts. What about a RfA? abf /talk to me/ 17:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
I see that Huggle has been giving you problems, which presumably explains why you reverted my vandal repair to the bad version. It's not the revert I object to, but the possible inference to be drawn that my edit was vandalism (or am I being too sensitive?). --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)lovely lady 09
You feel for it to review me, if you got the time to do so. It might be just a bold question, and I am not expecting a positive reaction, but I really need someone to do so. Thanks in advanche, -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion Tagging[edit]
Hey there. Just a reminder to double-check what you're tagging a page with before actually applying it. With reference to Tim Marsh, the author had not requested deletion - instead, they were actively trying to remove the speedy deletion tag. Because your tag was applied later, however, that was the reason given for deletion. Obviously, it doesn't really matter in this case, because it needed to be deleted anyway, it's just great to be careful. Cheers, Ale_Jrbtalk 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Another bad revert[edit]
Hello,
Please be more careful with your use of HG to revert vandalism, as you just undid my deletion of anon IP blatant vandalism at Rachel Scott, restoring vandalism in the process. Thanks. JGHowes talk 18:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I second that to Zhang Heng. You reverted an edit that was actually a revert of vandalism which cut out an entire section of the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I third this. Fieldday-sunday made an unconstructive revert to Allan Burns (surgeon). Should we get someone to look into this? Pdcook (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I second that to Zhang Heng. You reverted an edit that was actually a revert of vandalism which cut out an entire section of the article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Bob Urosevich[edit]
yeah you dick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.139.51.116 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Bob Urosevich[edit]
You reverted some edits to Bob Urosevich that I believe were correct. There is some discrepancy as to his title at the time of the contorversy cited. Please see the most recent updates with citations. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A-frame[edit]
Hi there. Based on the large number of complaints about your edits to Wikipedia, it comes as no surprise to me that you reverted my changes to the A-Frame page. Popular culture is an integral part of the Wikipedia experience. I'm assuming you are unaware of what Graham's Adventure Question Game is, and thusly made the revert. Moments from now I will be reverting your bad-faith edit to the A-Frame page. Please exercize a bit of civility when making your edits. Further reverts of this nature will be considered vandalism and you will be reported. You're welcome. Edemehpecne (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
D'Houet[edit]
M. D'Houet is foundress of an international Catholic religious community of nuns and has been an influential leader therefore in women's education and international development. I think she is significant and noteworthy. Jc3schmi (talk)
Subtext of the Persian Gulf anon edits[edit]
The anon made a handful of edits, and I wonder if this single-purpose account is not actually a devil's advocate. Making edits that are so blatantly pov would rile up the folk in the article so as to get them into an inflexible mood, and all sorts of unpleasantness subsequently erupts. I say that the next time that this sort of thing happens, we tender no warnings, but block at the first instance, Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
"Vandalism"[edit]
This is not vandalism - it's a newbie editor genuinely confused as to why you reverted his edit. OK, he was a bit incivil with his first comment on your talk page, but would it have been so difficult to explain to him rather than hit him with repeated confusing templates? I have unblocked him, anyway. Black Kite 23:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism[edit]
LOL at the vandalism. Thanks. jj137 (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Now can you offer me some advice...[edit]
I want to know how to be more constructive to wikipedia
- Hello - I'd suggest you start by reading the link I've put on your talkpage - that's Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. If you have any more questions after that, post them to my talk page - that's User_talk:Black Kite. Black Kite 23:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.146.114 (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on my Talk page, it's really appreciated, but I think you got a little carried away here[5] and here[6]. As far as I'm concerned you can strike that warning. SIS 00:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Daffodils in Morningside park[edit]
the article is very short, and the Park is very lovely. Have you visited it in the spring? The daffodills are unusually abundant and draw crowds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.45 (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
did you read the particular x-raided article that you considered my edits to be unconstructive too?[edit]
it was so much non-npov, so many round about explanations, it should be the responsibility of interested users to rebuild the rest in a wiki approved format.. i included the most relevant information. i realize an edit that large looks drastic immediately perhaps even like vandalism but that was not my intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.8.253 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, just leave wikipedia[edit]
Leave, you are only embarrassing yourself, and providing me with a source of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.188.126 (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Why force someone to leave Wikipedia? Unless it is related to WP:GTFO, let him/her stay.----Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten 14:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thanks for the revert on my user page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya, and thanks for your hard work. Just a couple of comments though. You should be warning users before reporting them to AIV. You can find out more information at WP:WARN including a list of templates. Also, just one bad edit is unlikely to result in a block. Often if you give a warning then the editor will desist. Again, your help is much appreciated but these things have a process that needs to be followed, at least reasonably closely. If you need any help please ask me! Pedro : Chat 16:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Peter Foster[edit]
Thanks for your edit to Peter Foster. It was much appreciated as there has been some POV-pushing on the article. Autarch (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
123.211.78.219 has repeatedly removed maintenance templates from Peter Foster and has been warned twice about it. Furthermore, the user is question is being investigated for sock puppetry, made personal attacks repeatedly and was warned twice over those. What do you advise? Autarch (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Fieldday-sunday: Not sure why additions to the Awards section with the NHOF Nomination constitutes vandalism and it's a shame that mention can be blocked. It most certainly should be included on these great NASCAR icons pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSI2009 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Person made a page about me: please delete[edit]
Hi, as user called Asdop made a page about me that contains highly personal information, can request it to be deleted and erased from the history?
Thanks Sum182official (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Notyourbroom (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
help[edit]
what does one do if they can't find citation for edit? and how know notability of an addition without violate NPOV? multumesc. --68.49.32.245 (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Wah[edit]
Stop whinning. I do what I want —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steedlike (talk • contribs) 13:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Hallesister and Sherrod Brown/Steve LaTourette[edit]
Please see my notes at Talk:Sherrod Brown and Talk:Steve LaTourette. I've responded to User_talk:Hallesister on his talk page about adding verbatim constituent letters to the articles. I risk violating WP:3RR if I revert him again. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue.DCmacnut<> 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Mahendra Singh Dhoni[edit]
There was some other vandalism in the earlier rev, so I reverted to an earlier version, after you undid the latest round of vandalism. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks![edit]
Apbiologyrocks (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!
Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj to all.
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! It's greatly appreciated.
ATTACK?[edit]
How did I attack the Indian dutch user? lol I didnt abuse anyone I suggest you start reading my post first Forzacry65 (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Rushden & Diamonds messageboard[edit]
Hi,
Thankyou for your message regarding the fan's forum link. I would like to clarify that the link has nothing to do with either promotion or commercial reasons. The site is a non profit site that allows fans to gather and talk. It is the only Rushden & Diamonds fan's site currently active and in existence that is used to get information not on the club's website. Due to current problems, it does not appear in current search engines and putting it on wiki is the best way to find it for fans looking for the site. This has been a problem in the past.
It is no different to fan's site links for Brentford, Manchester United (of which there are loads), Plymouth Argyle, Scunthorpe United, MK Dons, Chelsea, Hull AFC, Liverpool, Oxford United and others. Since it is the only one, there will not be more links added on this subject, so the chances of spam are virtually remote. There has not been a problem in the past when we have added a link to the site in its numerous forms and urls in the past, dating back years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.142.169 (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. As I said before there is no self promotion and I am simply and ordinary fan or the club and not directly affiliated. There is no commercial reason or gain. You'd have a job making money from it. As I said, it is a simple fan's messageboard like with the other. What is different to a website like RedCafe and the Rushden & Diamonds messageboards? There are around five for Scunthorpe. I don't want a confrontation, but I need better clarification given that other sites are allowed in other club's pages without deletion. I will not add it back, but I would like to keep up this conversation with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.142.169 (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I understand that but as I've said above, your reasons have no substance behind them as I outlined above twice, and can be interpreted as double standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.34.225 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a broken link above to your reply. Could you repost it? I can't see it
Wizards of Waverly Place Vandalism?[edit]
Why did you revert my edit? I wasn't vandalizing the page, that stuff is completely true. Please get your facts straight before you go accusing people of vandalism. And, why do you care so much about Wizards of Waverly Place and Hannah Montana?00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretchamberman (talk • contribs)
Please Don't Revert My User Talk[edit]
Blanking my own talk page is perfectly acceptable, please do not revert it. See here. 71.236.212.212 (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahem![edit]
[8] Philip Trueman (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Paper or plastics?[edit]
What is chose? Boxofmagic35 (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fact 202.47.69.212 inserted was not vandalism[edit]
What 202.47.69.212 said on his talk page was correct. You deleted an edit that you considered vandalism, however, virtually, this is a minor mistake. The edit only lacked references, and it was not even blatant. Please be careful next time.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 Contact Jakarta Center at 121.965 06:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Unexplained blanking of discussion[edit]
Why are you blanking legitimate edts, Fieldday-sunday? Perhaps more to the point, how did you learn about this discussion?24.22.141.252 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since you're editing away, I want an answer, if that's alright. How did you learn about this discussion?24.22.141.252 (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Use of Edit summaries[edit]
Hi! Just a quick request - if you are reverting edits that are not vandalism (such as the removal of original research), could you please explain in the edit summary why you are reverting, as the editor can think this is vandalism. This happened following this reversion, and the anon editor did belive you were reverting vandalism. Thanks! Stephen! Coming... 12:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Will ferrell[edit]
It was not unconstructive, he mentions it in the commentary for anchorman several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.143.47 (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks![edit]
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page :)! StaticGull Talk 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just reverted your good faith revert of the author's latest edit to this article. It was actually legitimate, since he added a category and thus made the {{uncategorized}} unnecessary. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I have been monitoring the work that Shipsview has been doing. This user is a newbie and I'm giving him/her a chance to properly write and cite his/her articles. I'm not sure why you reverted his/her edits and warned him/her for vandalism. Did I miss something? Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
ANI notification[edit]
Hello, Fieldday-sunday. 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. Pdcook (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fieldday, have you seen the ANI thread about your rollback? Several times you've reverted edits that were not vandalism, despite complaints about this at your talkpage. I decided to remove your access temporarily, since these complaints are seeming to go unaddressed. I'm sure that you were acting in good faith, but others have advised you to avoid these mistakes - WP:ROLL notes that any admin may remove rollback rights if the tool is used misused, and in this case, hasty reversion of good-faith edits has occurred several times. See the AN/I thread linked above, and please respond there. Best, JamieS93 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
re: anti-vandalism[edit]
Hey there saw you did some reverting on the article Penis Envy. Just a suggestion: make sure that you arent reverting back to old vandalism. In this case, you let the vandalism stay, while only reverting the most recent edit. Thanks for the help figting vandals! Tim1357 (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Mario Biaggi[edit]
I simply added that Biaggi resigned because he was about to be expelled from Congress (after being convicted in TWO separate corruption trials). In response to the accusation of vandalism, I added a link to Congressional Quarterly. Does every sentence need to be documented? You guys should be more careful about raising vandalism questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.242.217 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Fieldday-sunday, and thank you for volunteering your time to patrol recent changes. Please review your actions and warnings issued relating to the Mario Biaggi article. I think you will find appropriate sources have been cited, such as this source (seach for "Biaggi"). If you concur, please remove the warning that you issued. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
You guys are butchering the article and taking out additions that supported with citations! I also challenge you to back up your previous charge of vandalism against me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.242.217 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Revert at Square pyramidal number[edit]
You reverted a simple copyedit (removing the extraneous second "a" from "is a a") and identified it as "vandalism" in the edit summary when it was clearly a correction. Please do not assume that anonymous edits are vandalism. WP:Assume good faith and actually look at what was changed before reverting it. Thank you. — Gwalla | Talk 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- In addition, your immediate final warning at User talk:83.67.202.25 was extremely bitey. Please don't do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Anne Robinson[edit]
Good spot. Silly me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.1.168 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Your a complete fool[edit]
How on earth is stating true facts about a paticular subject/matter vandalism? Your out of your mind mate and should be banned from using this helpful site. Shame on you....D*&ckh*&d! I am very offended at your actions, claiming that my post was vandalism. I believe that I have the proper evidence to turn you to the local authorities for defimation. You better watch out mate. I will not tolerate a person calling my work vandalism. I AM NO VANDAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkishtumbler (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments and Bullying. If you do it again, i will determine wheather or not you are human and if so report you to authorities, my talk page is evidence enough for defaming me and my cause. THANKYOU. (Turkishtumbler (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
This is the only warning you will recieve for being disruptive and racist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkishtumbler (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Personal Attack[edit]
This is your only warning for personal attacks on me. Continuation will lead to you being blocked. Comment on the content not the contributor. (Turkishtumbler (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
Personal Attacking, ive had enough.[edit]
This is your only warning for personal attacks on me. Continuation will lead to you being blocked. Comment on the content not the contributor.(Turkishtumbler (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
I'm trying to help[edit]
Don't warn me. I try to insert sourced material. Your other contributor keeps reverting sourced material. Give me 10 mintues and than decide to keep or delete info based on the brought in sources. 94.210.222.154 (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
What?[edit]
What are you talking about? The section was already not neutral! I only changed the titles to make it less Anti-Japanese. Who are you to judge? I added no new material, only made the titles less pro-korean and more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natethegreatest (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think Natethegreatest's edit is "vandalism". Korea under Japanese rule is a disputed article and current version is quite biased to Korean POV. Please remove your accusation[9] by yourself. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your action at Korea under Japanese rule[edit]
- Hi, Fieldday-sunday, thank you for your action. The changes by Natethegreatest (talk · contribs) who violated numerous policies especially "copy-vio" and "NPOV are disruptive. He fails to adhere NPOV" by inserting his "essay" based on his favor for "Japanese nationalist view" (as he admitted). Thus, your assessment that the user's violation of NPOV is indeed "correct". However, some Japanese user obviously followed my talk page, and encourages him to violate such core content policy. That is worthy concerning. Keep up the good work.--Caspian blue 02:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
BY FunnyGoogle[edit]
I am sorry i did not know that my changes were reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnygoogle (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Removal of user warnings[edit]
In general, please don't do this. Re-adding the {{sharedip}} tag (and maybe adding a {{repeatvandal}} tag since the user has an extensive block history) would be fine. See WP:USERTALK. Though for this particular user, given the vandalism history, I don't think WP:AGF on his reading of the warnings, and he'll probably wind up blocked again soon anyway. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
G4 tag[edit]
Just a note about speedy tagging - on Karim De Willeagar just now, WP:CSD#G4 wasn't the right tag, because the previous version had been speedied; G4 is only for use where the previous deletion was actually by AfD. If a speedied article is recreated, just use the same speedy tag again - G3 in this case. There's good advice about speedy tagging at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Keep up the good work! JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Accusing others of vandalism/Misuse of Twinkle[edit]
I saw these BITEy warnings that you left to this new user's page whose edits were absolutely not vandalism and was surprised that an editor of your experience had left them. Then I was dismayed when I came here to your talk page only to see message after message of other editors telling you you have been mistakenly calling other good faith edits vandalism. I don't think you are getting the message, so please consider this your "final warning."
You need to understand that this behavior is a violation of our good faith policy and can get you blocked if you continue.
Before you warn another editor of vandalism you need to read and understand the vandalism policy, specifically:
"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 once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (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."
.
The first notice you left on that user's talkpage was absolutely uncalled for, fitting only for someone who writes "SUCKS BIG DICKS!!!" on a high traffic BLP page. Of course vandals are bad for Wikipedia and we need to deal with them, but the best we can do is try to make every person who edits here into a productive editor and that takes helpfulness and knowledge, not undeserved condemnation. That's the reasoning behind our good faith policy.
Please consider this advice. I could have brought this straight to the administrator's noticeboard, since it involves breaking of policy by using Twinkle, but I wanted to discuss this with you first. Auntie E. 21:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: II (April 2010)[edit]
Thanks for Reverting![edit]
Fieldday-sunday, I would like to thank you for keeping a keen eye on Saudi Arabia. Job well done! Dhulfiqar 19:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)
WikiProject Sociology membership[edit]
You are listed in the Category:Wikipedians interested in sociology, probably due to the use of "This user is interested in sociology" userbox, but you have not added yourself to our official member list for WikiProject Sociology. This prevent you from, among other things, receiving our sociology newsletter, as that member list acts as our newsletter mailing list (you can find the latest issue of our sociology newsletter here). If you'd like to receive the newsletter and help us figure out how many members we really have, please consider joining our WikiProject and adding yourself to our official member list. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
You are the one vandalizing.[edit]
You are the one inserting Arab lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizgame54312 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
'Unconstructive edit' on Greenock[edit]
Sorry, but David Maguire is a real person and his family really does come from Greenock - like I posted, he is very popular in youth culture and popular dancing. Do I need to provide links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.107.88 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I assume from looking over your talk page that you already know this, but please take some time to again review WP:VANDALISM and stop reverting edits and warning users for things that are not vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Candidate for President[edit]
Hello,
I have a problem, I posted my info that looked the same as the other Candidates listed. shortly it was removed and the reason was vandalism. I was posting facts about me running for President of the United States.
I don't understand why I am being prevented from posting but yet others are aloud too.
I held a online Press Conference on Feb 25th 2011. I contacted TV news, National and Local Stations in each state as well as News Papers. If I need to have validation, that is not my fault that they choose not to run the story about me running. I have proof, I contacted them from FAX call records and emails I sent. I have my Press Conference up on youtube.com http://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewFrancis2012
I would like to know what can be done to change this.
Thank you
From the desk of Presidential candidate
Andrew Francis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceperce (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
April 2011[edit]
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:82.41.247.200, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Peter.C • talk • contribs 01:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
You appear to have a long-standing problem of leaving abusive comments towards other users. You have been around long enough to know that this is not allowed. Take one week to review the contents of WP:NPA. Administrators can view your latest violation here If you wish to be unblocked, please copy the following template below {{unblock|YOUR REASON HERE}} and replace YOUR REASON HERE with the reason that you should be unblocked. --Jayron32 03:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your access to Twinkle has been revoked for the above reasons. --Rschen7754 23:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thank you[edit]
thanks for blocking this person