- 1 Barnstars for you
- 2 why you reverted my edits
- 3 Why did you revert the addition of the Keihan Uji Line section of the Keihan Main Line article?
- 4 Regarding my so-called “Vandalism”
- 5 A barnstar for you!
- 6 Reversing my edit?
- 7 Fiat 132
- 8 A barnstar for you!
- 9 Bishop Thomas Tobin
- 10 List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events.
- 11 Ironic
- 12 Maildir
- 13 DerSpiegelNein's edits
- 14 Clarification please
- 15 House Mouse
- 16 on vandalism
- 17 A barnstar for you!
- 18 A kitten for you!
- 19 Removal of unreferenced material
- 20 AIV report
- 21 You are supporting Inaccuracy on The Dover Boys
- 22 Copyright Infringement
- 23 Why this revision
- 24 Why are you reverting my edits?
Barnstars for you
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|This is for your valuable efforts for reverting and protecting enwiki from Vandalism PATH SLOPU 14:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)|
|The Original Barnstar|
|This is for your valuable efforts for contributing to Wikipedia PATH SLOPU 14:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)|
|The Invisible Barnstar|
|This is for your valuable efforts for contributing to Wikipedia without seeking any recognition or reward. PATH SLOPU 14:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)|
why you reverted my edits
- Hello Ashoka the idiot, you know what redirect is? Regards Serols
- Hello Ashoka the idiot, Criticism of Hinduism is only a redirect site to the main article Anti-Hindu sentiment and you deleted the redirect. Regards Serols
- @Ashoka the idiot: You don't need to "remake [a] page on [the] topic," because an article related to it already exists: Anti-Hindu sentiment; you can contribute to that article instead. Even if you are "remaking," the content you replaced the redirect page with is not sufficient and appears to be original research. I suggest first you try The Wikipedia Adventure and read about reliable sources, verifiability, and finally writing your first article. You can reach out to our Teahouse or the Help Desk if you need any help related to editing on Wikipedia. Happy editing. —RainFall 11:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Why did you revert the addition of the Keihan Uji Line section of the Keihan Main Line article?
- Hello 2406:3003:2004:6A0:C5F2:FAEA:DFF9:3E8E, see here. Serols
- Please stop your vandalism. Serols
Regarding my so-called “Vandalism”
It’s actually for my English homework. We’re reading George Orwell’s 1984 right now and we were given a task to “change” the past as “He who controls the future controls the past...” and so on. I always make sure to change it back after so there’s no need to go all angry. San13flower (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello San13flower, please stop your vandalism. This was your last warning, you risk your account. Serols
A barnstar for you!
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|This is for your outstanding performance in saving Wikipedia from the threat of vandalism. I appreciate your selfless service. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)|
Reversing my edit?
Hello. I edited the political party of the current Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure for South Africa, as it was incorrect, and yet you still reverted it? Here's the page for Patricia de Lille, the minister, which contains her correct party: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_de_Lille YNJessyDV (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hello YNJessyDV, sorry for my revert, I thought it´s vandalism. Regards Serols
Murali Maggi maiaa..
A barnstar for you!
|The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|
|Almost every time I go to revert an edit, you've either already done it or have previously reverted vandalism on the page. Thanks for the hard work and for keeping Wikipedia free of vandalism! OliverEastwood talk 07:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)|
Bishop Thomas Tobin
Hello Serols -
Regarding the entry for Bishop Thomas Tobin:
I am sorry to have seemingly had a tit-for-tat exchange. This was not my intent.
Can you point me to an appropriate resource for style guides/citations about proper listing news worthy information about the view points of public figures?
Bishop Tobin recently made news worthy comments, objectively controversial statements which were published on social media and spread widely thereafter. There is already a section of his page regarding his views. I do not wish to vandalize, only inform and memorialize. Guidance would be appreciated.
- Hello 184.108.40.206, I will help you, but please wait a little bit. Regards Serols
List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events.
- Hello 220.127.116.11, hi and ok are some of the most common words used for vandalism in Wikipedia. Since you did not sign, your post was deleted. Regards --Serols (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Serols, you wrote that you reverted my edit of Maildir "because it did not appear constructive". Even though the name is admittedly unusual the Notmuch email system, which I added to the list, is specifically designed to handle large, Maildir-based message stores. So, my contribution is constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by talk:TheRealRalph#top|talk]] • contribs) 16:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello TheRealRalph, the link is on the wrong place. Please stop your edit war. Regards--Serols (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- First it was "not constructive". Then the link was "on the wrong place". The link has since been replaced with a reference. Please stop desperately seeking faults. There is a difference between legitimately addressing vandalism and unfounded obstructionism on your end. TheRealRalph (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Serols-can you please specify what in my edit of the Key Bridge page constitutes vandalism? I added easily verifiable historical information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthpatrol2 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello contribs, everything already exists on your talk-pag. --Serols (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out on reverting the 'RAT! Treated like dirt by many admins since 2016 DEAD RAT! GET LOST YOU DEAD RAT!' edits on the house mouse page. Do you know how to protect the page or ban the vandalizing editor? BlacknoseDace (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I found message as my changes being vandalism without further details. While per guidelines it can be a link vandalism only if the link is "disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling".
my changes were immediately reverted by yours when posted without any verification of content as per guidelines and tagged as vandalism. Was it automated ? Do you mind cancelling reverting after content verification ?
- Hello Serlos
- Thanks for External link information.
- I gone through it and still did not found anything relates to vandalism about info I put up in link.
- I was considering to edit it again with same link. Would you consider to remove it again if yes then can you be specific if it ::is not personal ?
- Hello Serlos
- you are keep defending your revert and being unreasonable. I still have not re-added and you have already made the case of link spam vandalism.
- while you are still failed to mentioned the original blame of 'vandalism' by definition. However the rule of vandalism is still not changed.
- Can you un-automate default mode of 'my argument is undeniable' for reverting any edits with 'vandalism' tag spicing with account risk threats and discuss the real talk ?
- Any response without mentioning "disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate" part of revert back could be considered as agreed to original edit.
- Rbtcpn (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC) rbtcpn
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Are you from UK Referencer ? Roseirena (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)|
A kitten for you!
That was fun.
Removal of unreferenced material
Hi, I think you are being a bit quick with the rollback feature. How do you looked at the edit comments you would see why I removed this material. It has zero sources. If this is a topic you are knowledgeable on please return the material with sources. In the meantime I shall re-edit. Springnuts (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Having looked a bit further, ( burial at sea) you put the message on the wrong talk page. You reverted an IP edit. However, my edit did reverse your edit so if you wish to restore material please do. However, please add sources. Otherwise it is likely to be removed again as original research. Springnuts (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Springnuts, you reverted a nonsense edit and and then you correct yourself. Regards --Serols (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your work reverting and reporting vandalism, however this edit which you reported to AIV looks like a good faith addition of sourced content to me. Could you please explain why you believe this is vandalism in case I am missing something? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
You are supporting Inaccuracy on The Dover Boys
Why are you undoing edits to The Dover Boys article?
The anachronism can be verified in 10 seconds, yet it stands thanks to your reverts! Better to have a note than to be wrong!
If it is formatted improperly, fix that, but you are supporting obvious inaccuracies and degrading the usefulness of Wikipedia by lording over a page without benefit of fact.
From Wikipedia: “Not all edits by new or unregistered contributors are vandalism. Check out the content added or removed before reverting blindly, and remember not to bite the newcomers.”
Reporting others for vandalism without following Wikipedia Guidelines (ie reverting blindly without making clear your reasoning, and falsely accusing others of vandalism) is hypocritical.
Please help fix the problem, don’t be the problem. This kind of activity unfortunately reinforces an unfair stereotype of the know-it-all unyielding Wikipedia Editor who lords over the page and edits by ego and rollback button, rather than accuracy and community.
- We did see that link. It is unintelligible. As was stated previously, you can keep linking to here but it does not link to anything that explains what you did. Your behavior is abusive and contrary to stated Wikipedia goals and policy. Actions should be explainable and beneficial, and when you hide behind auto reverts and links to non-explanations you do us all a disservice. Take the time to do the job fairly and responsibly or step aside.
- Please have the show the strength of conviction to explain your actions instead of cowardly rolling back criticism.
I am the sole copyright holder of all exploitation, distribution and intellectual rights worldwide to the film The Virgin Queen of St. Francis High. I have attempted to make corrections to the page, but you have blocked me. Remove your block so that I may make the proper corrections. If you refuse, just remove the entire page completely. Otherwise you are infringing on my rights.
What do you mean by "use references"?
Have attempted several times to edit the page to correct the information you insist on retaining. Provide your attorney contact details. We will now pursue legal action to get this situation rectified.
Why this revision
- Hello Soratako, this is Wikipedia En - please use English. Regards --Serols (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Why are you reverting my edits?
Why are you removing my edit Land Beyond Productions produced Ben's video and the link is to the video produced and is valid.
What is the point of Wikipedia if you cannot link to valid content?