User talk:RandomAct/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sorry

I am removing the wraning. It was a mistake. Edit conflict.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Indented line OK then, I removed mine too. Oh well, I'm sure they'll do it again. HistoryStudent113 (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yolanda Vega

Hi there! I noticed you tagged the Yolanda Vega page with a G1, 'patent nonsense' should only be used for stuff like a mush of keys or the like. As noted at WP:CSD, "[t]his excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material". Just thought I should let you know. Thanks. :) Chris Rocen (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

It is normally preferable to archive your talk page's content rather than remove the content. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You, HistoryStudent113, have just been awarded The New Mikemoral's generic barnstar in miniature. You can earn this award too for other generic things, just like HistoryStudent113 did.

Nice work on reverting vandalism by the way, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 01:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I can copy the old talk page stuff to your archive for you. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Take a look at the page. The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. HistoryStudent113 (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed a bit of vandalism. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 01:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you meant to do this

[1] - you might want to remove your warning?Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That I did not, thanks for the heads-up. I have removed my warning. HistoryStudent113 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been there too. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

a little quick on the revert button

i'm sure you mean well, but lighten up on the trigger on the revert button. give an editor a chance to finish!--98.113.187.11 (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you had just used an edit summary to explain your deletion, HistoryStudent would most likely not have reverted. HistoryStudent was very careful in his selection of warning template. He used the template, uw-huggledelete1 (akin to {{Uw-delete1}}), which states that your edit was being reverted, and you were being warned, because “it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation.” Also, remember that a Level 1 warning, which is what you received, assumes good faith on the part of the person receiving the warning.

Given the lack of explanation for the deletion of an infobox, the vast majority of recent changes patrollers would have also reverted your deletion and placed a warning on your talk page.

Using detailed edit summaries is the best way to ensure that your good faith edits are notreverted by recent changes patrollers or other wikieditors. Thanks and happy editing! —SpikeToronto 00:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

had anyone had taken the time to look at my edit history, one would have seen that i normally provide a rather extensive edit summary. that i failed to in this one instance is NOT a reason for issuing any type of "warning". one can see from historystudent's rather busy edit history during the time in question, that historystudent could not have possibly taken any time to review an editor's edit history to get any feel if it was a new or seasoned editor. (and no, registering is not an option for me.)--98.113.187.11 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to defend myself on my own talk page...

mea culpa, my fault and all that. Will keep a closer eye on edit histories from now on.

HistoryStudent113 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scopes Trial, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please usethe sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--78.128.178.37 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What happened here is that, with this edit,78.128.178.37 was actually reverting vandalism, which he stated in his edit summary. So,your reversion of his reversion put the vandalism back in. This happened to me too the other day. In my case it was because the wikiarticle was so busy that it was receiving one edit every 15 seconds, so my revert went at the same time as someone else’s. But, as luck would have it, a third person was doing it at the same time and so reverted my reversion of a reversion! <whew!> — SpikeToronto 00:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, editors tripping over each other's feet to get to that one. Didn't catch that one in time to revert my reversion of the revert (I think that's right) HistoryStudent113 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No Problems :D

No worries, Using huggle, sometimes you dont even realise what youve reverted sometimes :D, James'ööders03:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page

Here, have a cookie.

Message From Xenu 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}}!

Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 01:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning (not for you)

Do you think that 65.191.76.61's edit to Brassiere would be using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion instead of just general vandalism. Sorry this seems a little trivial, but I like to give a more personal reason than just general vandalism if possible. Cheers. --InfinityAndBeyond (talk · contribs)  would you like to play some chess? 07:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. That IP is a newer user so I will give them the benefit of the doubt and the general welcome template that references spam and the article specifically. We'll see if they keep doing it but I'll try to keep an eye on that IP for a while. Thanks for the heads upHistoryStudent113 (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No problemo. --InfinityAndBeyond (talk · contribs)  would you like to play some chess? 07:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVenustas_12&action=historysubmit&diff=332803790&oldid=332803758Venustas 12 (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

always good to keep an eye on each other's user pages, reverting vandalism tends to annoy people :)HistoryStudent113 (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert to my userpage. Kinda funny how someone would actually make an account just to make attacks (in this case "core" bands). Go figure! • GunMetal Angel 06:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for not following the correct channels, I'm not usually one to adhere to things that disrupt my mode of thought.

I will reiterate here what I replied to your last message with.

"I would also like to point out the lack of neutrality in the original content. As I laid out quite clearly in my reasons. Where is the information regarding the controversy of the mistranslation that has caused unrest in civil liberty, and where is there anywhere on the page relating to the disgusting use of this book for moral justification to commit crimes of hate? This shows absolutely no sign of eith 'fact' nor 'neutrality'. I request a dispute on the grounds that it is biased and omits facts, controversy from scholars and the gay rights movement, and the fact that there is no information linked to any of the issues I have raised anywhere on this heavily disputed literature."

Lee (2nd Jan 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by81.141.82.125 (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)