If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kleuske (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your recent request for rollback was declined and it was recommended that you join the CVA. I see potential in your vandal-fighting abilities, and would like you to become my student in the Counter vandalism academy. What do you think? - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new lesson on warning/reporting users that is pretty important. This may take awhile to complete, so I will give you a few days to work on it. I’ll be monitoring your progress! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for documentation. It also allows you to leave comments involving your revert and diffs to AIV reports. Secondly, administrators will look at your coursework before deciding to grant rollback, so I think it best to complete it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Illusion Flame and Cyberwolf434344, I guess you've both started editing so recently you both belong to the post-reply button era still seems like we started doing that yesterday to me but if a thread continues for a while you can periodically outdent it by using {{od}}, or {{od2}} if you prefer. Yes you have to edit the wikitext directly, but it really isn't that bad I promise, some of us did it for more than two decades and it worked fine. You may also find it advantageous to periodically insert WP:Arbitrary breaks when discussions become long. Just remember to sign your posts the old fashioned way with ~~~~ when directly editing the wikitext. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A kitten for you!
Thanks for taking care of that disruptive editor and restoring content in those articles.
Hi, and thanks for your contributions. I noticed that you've been commenting on UAA reports. This is unnecessary and isn't recommended for non-admins, although I appreciate that you're trying to help. Most UAA reports are pretty straightforward. There generally isn't anything to add that the admins can't figure out themselves by having a quick look at the user's edits or just using common sense. The only exceptions I can think of are reports involving usernames with offensive non-English terms that most admins wouldn't be aware of. I've worked quite a bit in recent changes patrol (although I've been more focused on other areas lately) so feel free to reach out if you have any questions about RC patrol or Wikipedia in general. Thanks :) — SamX [talk·contribs]05:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+rollback for a month
Hi Cyberwolf434344,
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
Use common sense.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
So, 3 days after you received rollback you decided to abuse it by rolling back a good-faith and valid edit (point 4 above) while not supplying an editsummary or explanation on the talkpage (point 2 above). When asked for an explanation on your talkpage you imply that editsummaries require sources. When proof is provided that the edit you made introduced misinformation on Wikipedia you ignore that. Then you post a user warning for civility on my talkpage, abusing TWINKLE, while being incivil. 86.88.105.173 (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a breath, a sleep, whatever. The world is not ending and there's almost a month left to demonstrate having learned from this. You may like to remove this all, it's not meant to be a wall of shame. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the polemic section entirely, undone the latest revert of your edit and removed a personal attack made in response to your concerns. I agree with everything you wrote above except for an immediate need to revoke the permission. Its duration is already limited to a month and I'd like to see how the rest of the trial continues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ToBeFree or the person editing with using the IP, but it's good to see this self-reflection. You might have figured this out already based on recent experience, but removing content from articles is often constructive and necessary. Wikipedia has a lot of content that's very poorly written, isn't supported by reliable sources, violates our policy on writing about living people, or goes against policies or guidelines in some other way. It's true that vandals often remove large chunks of content, but you should carefully read the content that was removed before you re-add it or leave a warning on the editor's talk page.Regarding rollback: I try to use it very sparingly. If I think it's possible that the edit I'm reverting was a legitimate attempt to improve Wikipedia, I assume good faith and use Twinkle to revert so that I can leave a custom note in the edit summary. Using rollback to revert an edit is basically saying "this edit is obviously bad and I don't need to explain this revert". I hope this helps. — SamX [talk·contribs]00:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add one aspect that is more-or-less relevant depending on anonymity and location (and thus highly relevant for me personally as my identity is public and I live in a country with strict libel laws and criminal prosecution of insults):
You are legally responsible for any material you add to Wikipedia, including any material you re-add if it has been removed by someone else.
Not just legally. If someone removes something, and you add it back in, you have to be able to justify its inclusion to other Wikipedians who may disagree. So for example, in case that it is unsourced, it is very wise to add a source before adding it back in. 86.88.105.173 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
.jpg)