Why do you insist my editing of this is vandalism? Do you even take the time to read it?
I am simply replacing what is false and misleading with what is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.14.218 (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you did not cite any reliable sources, and therefore could be considered wrong. The information that was previously there was well supported by its sources. Next, if you do want to add information that can prove controversial, please use the discussion page first. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the user was deliberately deleting sections of the article since there was a significant removal of material from the article. Sorry if there was any confusion. L Kensington 13:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you calling references vandlism?
This makes no sense considering wikipedias policy "Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles" How does a reference to a directory that relates 100% to the topic be considered vandlism? If adding valuable info to wikipedia just gets delated, why would anyone waste time adding any info? That will just let to a breakdown of the site that is to be build on nothing but user input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.94.247 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that you are adding spam links to the article even though it has been removed. I can easily justify the revert as vandalism because your are adding information that is not beneficial in any way to the article, and would otherwise be considered as nonsense. By the way, sweepsplay.com is NOT a reference and was NOT listed as so. It was listed as a external link. L Kensington (talk • contribs0
So you have no real reason to delete that reference other than someone else did it first? That is fine. It is sad and I really don't understand it, but it is fine. I have no dog in this fight. I use several of these directories and sweepsplay.com is the one I use the most. I am sure that others would like to find this site that is 100% related to the topic being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.94.247 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who deleted it first, Sweepsplay.com is still considered a spam link. It has NO value to the article whatsoever. For the sake of this argument, I personally visited sweepsplay.com and found no material that gives a user info/knowledge on the subject, besides from the blatant fact that it is a commercial sweepstake website. It is a spam link, end of story. I'm pretty sure users would not like to hear about the thousands of websites of dog breeders when they look up Dogs or see the millions of restaurant websites when they look up food.
L Kensington (talk • contribs)
I appreciate the fact that you took the time to research the website. I don't agree with you about the value, but I do appreciate the fact that now you actually know about the site instead of just blindly deleting it because someone else did it first. It seems to me that is where the value of wikipedia comes in. Many people input what they feel is valuable and contributes to the topic. One may not see the value of one contribution but many others may. Everyone comes here for different information so what is valuable to one person may seem like nonsense or be irrelevant to another. I feel that the contribution I made was and would still be valuable to many and those who didn't find value in it, would just ignore it. It did relate to the topic.
Think about it like this...Why would someone start researching sweepstakes in the first place? Many (not all but many) will do it because they are interested in entering some. That is why I did. If they are interesting entering them then a list of sweepstakes organized for them would be extremely valuable. It was for me and this one site in particular because it was free (not commercial). If the person researching sweepstakes was doing it for another reason, say they are doing a research paper, they may find no value in the link to sweepsplay.com. That person would just ignore the link. The presence of that link only adds value to wikipedia and does nothing to deminish the value.
I have included this link before because I see the value and I am sure that several others will too. I have fought this issue before because I am trying to help build this user built site. I thought it would be fun to help add to it, but it hasn't been.
Again I don't have a dog in this fight so I will not try to push the issue any further other than to say that I think you should reconsider your position. Have a good one! I am going to go spend my time entering some sweepstakes and hopefully win some money or prizes. In this economy, as a commercial roofer, I (and I am sure many others) could use all of the help I can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.185.92 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the link does not add value to wikipedia. It does the exact opposite. Would you really like to see www.giftelectronics.com! Get a Free iPod, Laptop, PS3, Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii & Plasma TV stuffed into an article on laptops? Or what about finding lightbulb.com - get lightbulbs 50% off! Buy 1 get 1 free! on a article about lightbulbs. It's called spam. Most people hate it. They're tired enough of finding spam email messages in their inboxes and wikipedia articles certainly don't need it. It's everywhere, from YouTube to Facebook, to text messages. "You are trying to help build this user built site" Once again, it's called spam. Just because Joe Schmo from Faketown, Westovia decided he would launch a website advertising users that they would get an ipod if they submitted their credit card numbers, social security numbers, bank accounts and other information doesn't mean it's a good website let alone a useful one. Most of the time, companies, not individual users, are behind these spam links. I'm not surprised why it hasn't been fun for you. I cannot emphasize enough how much people hate spam.
"Why would someone start researching sweepstakes in the first place? Many (not all but many) will do it because they are interested in entering some." Sorry, but your arguement is baseless. If a person looked up BP to find out more about the oil spill, I don't think that they would enjoy finding the BP gas prices for the moment. And yes, a person could browse over the info if it did not interest them, but once again, most people don't enjoy finding websites advertising lightbulb sales when they look up light bulbs. If we were to allow this to happen, we might as well let wikipedia run loose and have comments such as "I like Pie" in the middle of articles pertaining to pie. And unfortunately, I will not reconsider my position on this topic. Not now, not ever. I personally find that those websites are hoaxes, nothing more than to collect information about you so that companies can sell it to other companies and vice versa, but you don't have to agree with me. That is my personal opinion. Having said that, please don't add links like or similar in nature to sweepstakes.com to articles.
I don't believe that you really can't see the difference here. I don't think that anyone is truely that obtuse. Take the lightbulb, and laptops examples that you gave. If you look up those topics then I wouldn't expect to find listings advertising free lightbulbs and laptops. If I looked up poker then I would expect to see examples of poker websites. That fits right in. If I look up sweepstakes then I expect to find examples of sweepstakes. That would include free laptop and lightbulb giveaways. You are taking an abstract search term (sweepstakes) and trying to compare it to concrete search terms (lightbulbs, BP, laptop, etc). They are apples and oranges. Physical and immatarial.
The not fun for me part was in reference to trying to work within the Wikipedia guidelines to help grow it beyond what it is today. I can see that the site is falling into a rut that will keep it from expanding much beyond the current level. Don't fall prey to the click mentality. It is ruining this site.
"And unfortunately, I will not reconsider my position on this topic. Not now, not ever."....Really? You know that never being willing to grow or change your opinions means that you will never grow beyond the point that you are now. It means that you are not willing to put continued thought into any particular topic. That is a really bad thing in any aspect of your life. I assume that you are a young person. In the coming years you will see the foolishness in that statement. That is true in every aspect of your life. (I can give personal examples of seeing the foolishness of rasicm or homophobia, in spite of being raised to hold those beliefs.
After much reflection I have grown passed the beliefs I was taught to be true.) It goes way beyond this basically meaningless (in the greater sense) of this website known as Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.185.92 (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We obviosuly have differing opinions. I personally believe that if we were to let these things happen, wikipedia would be like Google. Search engines are for built for handling these types of information requests if a user does choose to find a sweepstakes website. Wikipedia is not meant to be fun. It's meant to be an informative source of information.
"You know that never being willing to grow or change your opinions means that you will never grow beyond the point that you are now. It means that you are not willing to put continued thought into any particular topic... Rest of the paragraph." Sorry, but that's the way I am. I am not going to change my views on this topic, but that doesn't mean that I won't reconsider my position in some cases, but I am certainly not going to reconsider this one. I, for one, certainly would not like to see poker websites on a poker article, nor the everex website on a computer article. There are some cases where these types of websites are warranted when the website is actually notable like seeing eBay when I look at an auction page or Facebook on a social networking page, but even these articles don't provide a direct link to their respective websites, only a link to their individual articles. sweepsplay.com isn't notable at all, and yes, I know you're trying to build it up, but this isn't the place to advertise it. Come to think about it, how many websites do you think will be listed if we allowed people to post them? Thousands, millions, billions, who knows?
I'm obviously not going to change your opinion on this matter, and you are not going to change mine. So let's stop here.
We could make arguments to each other about the sky being red, triangles having 2 sides, and how cold the sun is. But in the end, we won't change each other's opinions. I'd like to take the time to comment that you have been very professional throughout this conversation. Thanks for keeping it real. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I appreciate you actually taking the time to investigate this issue some and discuss it. You are the first one to. The lack of professionalism by some of the other editors was what I was referring to by saying that my experience with Wikipedia hasn't been very fun. Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.185.92 (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you issued 74.102.20.237 with an immediate final warning for his first edit, which was a page blank and the inclusion of silly rubbish. In this case you should have issued a level one for page blanking or a level one for factual errors: either {{uw-delete1}} or {{uw-error1}}. I removed your immediate final warning and issued the user with a caution for knowingly introducing factual errors ([2]) (you should have issed a general note, so mine should have been a caution). I have since had to add a warning ([3]).
If you want a user to be blocked then you will need to go to WP:AIV, and they will want to see a proper warning history. If there isn't one then the disruptive editor won't get blocked. It's like being in the police force: if you want to lock up criminals then you must follow procedure; otherwise they will get off on a technicality.
Obviously if very serious vandalism occurs, for example racial or sexual comments then you can issue an immediate final warning. Take a look at this page, it lists all of the warning templates. If you have any questions, then drop me a line. •• Fly by Night (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to disagree with the user above (sorry for invading in on your talk page) - we shouldn't be giving out freebies to vandalize 4 times. Use your best judgement - if it appears to be a good faith contribution not in line - then issue a 1st warning. If it looks to be a deliberate attempt to damage the content - it can be appropriate to second warn, then jump to 4th or go to 3rd, then 4th (if the edits warrant it) - why waste your time with a particular vandal that doesn't take not of the warnings and keeps vandalizing? Just my two cents. Connormahtalk20:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But an immediate final warning was issued for a first edit. A first edit that simply blanked a page and added silly comments. You are free to issue immediate final warnings for things like this; but they are empty threats. No admin would ever block a user for a second, similar, edit. (This was the edit that was given an immediate final warning.) •• Fly by Night (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that this particular time would be appropriate - rather I was trying to get at the reason you shouldn't always be going up with 4 for even severe vandals - it's all about good judgement. Connormahtalk22:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No-one ever said that an immediate final warning could never be warrented. As I said in my very first post on this page: "Obviously if very serious vandalism occurs, for example racial or sexual comments then you can issue an immediate final warning. Take a look at this page, it lists all of the warning templates. If you have any questions, then drop me a line." I would have hoped that the rule of common sense would have been applied to fill the gaps. The clear fact of the matter was that this edit did not warrant an immediate final warning. As such I took it upon myself to give a brief outline of the warning protocol. Having followed WP:AIV, I have seen many times that proposed blocks are rejected because proper warnings have not been given. (Obviously, some levels can be skipped in the case of repeat offenders, previously blocked users, very strong personal insults, etc.) Although: Can I just say that L Kensington does a really good job. I don't question his/her commitment or motives. I just thought s/he went in a bit strong and thought that a refresher was in order. •• Fly by Night (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the edit above - that could have actually been a second warning. Like I said, just use your best judgement - nothing is worse than the same vandal just wasting your time (where they could be blocked faster). Just my two cents. Connormahtalk23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a sidenote - as you've been doing a great job recently - have you ever thought of requestting rollback, to enable you to use other automated (and a bit speedier ;)) tools, such as Huggle? I find vandalism patrol very easy with Huggle - it takes only the press of a key to revert and warn (plus when it gets to 4 warnings, it reports too, automatically). Connormahtalk20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have, I just wanted to make more edits before I applied. I probably will ask for it now. Thanks! L Kensington (talk • contribs)
Yeah, I have. Actually, I already installed it on my computer without the proper knowledge of rollback at the time. I found out that I needed the rollback feature once I installed it (since I didn't read the documentation). It's a bit nerve-wrecking looking at the Requests for Permissions/ Rollback page. Especially knowing that I have only been registered for less than a month. L Kensington (talk • contribs)
It shouldn't be a problem for you - you have plenty of experience, and from what I can tell, you've got no pressing complaints regarding any mistakes. Good luck. Connormahtalk20:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I'm glad we talked. You've been really helpful. I am really excited now that I have rollback permission. Thanks again. L Kensington (talk • contribs)
Hi, I've blanked your userpage to remove a personal attack. If you want the page itself deleted, remove the <!-- and --> around {{db-u1}}, if not just make it how you want :) Pilif12p : Yo 02:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, for the future (as you are a vandal fighter, you are prone to personal attacks/vandalism on your userpage), if you wish to maintain no userpage, I can request that it be create protected, to keep those vandals from creating it with personal attacks. Connormahtalk04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the redirect, per the above comments - although I've only semi-protected it so far. That way you can update it yourself if you decide to create the page ... although if you want full protection, request it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you revert so quickly; I mean, how are you prompted that it's vandalism? Obviously you don't just sit around and hit the revert button? do you? 75.25.175.232 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. At first I was like, who the heck just sits around and watches these article pages all day long. But it's far more interesting; someone that watches other peoples user pages and responds on their behalf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.175.232 (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey L Kensington, please see Harvest 2000. If the only author of an article blanks it, reinstating what was there serves little purpose; the way to go is to add a db-author tag to it. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so, but it is still better to just re-tag it as db-author. Sometimes new editors will not know that they can request the article to be removed and just blank the whole thing. They wipe out the whole thing thinking that it is good enough. It is a fairly common practice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if three weeks counts as regular, but how else was I suppose to tell him? I deal with Degrassi fan, vandals multiple times a day, they've started to all blend together. 117Avenue (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well he's racked up over 6k edits in those 3 weeks and, since he was using Huggle, he wouldn't have seen the editnotice. Perhaps you should be s little more understanding and a little less hasty with the template warnings? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings!
Hello L Kensington, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Just wanted to make my girlfriend blush, who was lying right beside me- I was going to edit it back out but you beat me to it... ridiculously quickly. bang up job you are doing.
I am the principal author of "Golden Team" (GallopingMajor & OliverTwist88) please do not tamper with this article. I have been gradually writing this piece bit by bit since December 2005. Book references are cited on the bottom of the article, but I have yet to put in the right citations, which I will at the conclusion of my writing. This article is still under construction, references will be cited when I have finished. Thank you for you due attention and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist88 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Please read WP:OWN. Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project. Have you noticed the If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. under the 'Save page' button? If you don't want it to be 'tampered with', then please do not submit it. Thanks. Connormahtalk05:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you recently reverted an IPs edits on the Antalyaspor article. Just wanted to let you know it wasn't vandalism because the club changed their name to Medical Park Antalyaspor (see here, here and here). That's not why I'm bugging, as I believe he should have included references and whatnot, but the main reason I'm here is, how would I go about including it in the article? Should the article retain the same name, or have it moved to the new sponsored name? I've read around the site that including sponsor names in the article title are frowned upon (for articles pertaining to league and cup competitions). I thought it would be best to leave the page at Antalyaspor, but include the information in the lead and the infobox. Invisibletr (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Golden Team
The whole article is still a full draft, what it requires is me citing the appropriate citations from the 3 books used to build this article, until then it is wholly my work. When I am finished with it after 5 years of writing, anyone can have at it. Until then it is exclusively a draft, and I especially receive Englishmen and Germans who wish to tamper with its contents, no other nationalities are more prone to "reforming" this article. Please give a wide berth and latitude to this article till it is finished in the proper manner. Yours truly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist88 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. It's public property now. Every editor on Wikipedia owns it. Not just you. That starts from the day the article is created. Even this page isn't mine, but rather a page about me. It doesn't matter if you created it. You released the article to the public. Anyone is free to edit it. This is an encyclopedia that is open to the public. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
ClueBot never said it was vandalism, if you read the notice carefully. ClueBot said that the user was censoring content, and that Wikipedia is not censored. -- Cobi(t|c|b)08:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I always think that when Cluebot says "reverting possible vandalism" on the history page, then the user can interpret it as being vandalism. I still think that the edits were in good faith. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yeah right, posting naked pictures of men on articles that are completely unrelated to the topic is called vandalism. Don't try to pull that one on me. Although Wikipedia is uncensored, that does not mean that you can post anything you want. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
I've been admiring your kick-butt work here and just read through your talk page. I'd be happy to give you rollback rights if you'd like. It's pretty clear that you're on board with policy and know what you are doing. OhNoitsJamieTalk04:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:L Kensington Please Refrain from editing Geoff Petersen. He does not perform a fist pump, he Simulates Male masturbation. Craig Ferguson notes it quite frequently as "Pleasuring himself". While it may not be seen as appropriate, it is accurate. Thanks Rosing95 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Rosing95[reply]
User:L Kensington uses WP:Huggle to edit blatant vandalism. Those of us who do, normally use something call the duck test to revert those edits. Please bear in mind that when you are editing and adding terms that are sometimes used to vandalize (like "masturbation", "penis", and other sexual references), a vandal fighter such as L Kensignton might mistaken them as vandalism. I reassure you, it is not intended to erase honest edits. The notice might look ugly on your talk page, but if you add a comment under it, it shows that you are a good editor and willing to communicate. As a matter of fact, I got one of those recently! Thank you and happy editing. --Marco Guzman, Jr Chat 23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you are fighting vandalism, but please don't get so caught up in it that you revert copyvio blanking as you did here. This is especially true if you have not examined the blanked text to be sure that there is not an actual copyright violation. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh my gosh i am so sorry! Sometimes when I go to manually warn a vandal, it warns the vandal fighter if someone else reverts it before i do. I actually came here to say keep up the great work! Tommy![message]17:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I (or you) could put in a request at WP:RFPP for a temporary protection of your talkpage - judging by the history, it's getting pretty bad. Connormah17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I got a little busy, anyways, I think the page is fine without it. I would like other users to communicate with me, as long as it is in a proper manner. Thanks. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly the article I sent you is blocked. It is a list of Illinois All State Debaters since 2000. In my edits I noted those who were from Deerfield high School and were all state multiple years. I do not wish to have anything regarding John Lee's hand motions or Sam Rothbloom's ego (that is the words of a less intelligent friend haha). All I wish is for the last line to be "The 2010-2011 captains are Sam Rothbloom and John Lee." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.235.157 (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the information in regards to debate read as follows?:
The Congressional Debate team (Student Congress) is ubiquitous, and is one of the largest clubs at the high school. It has been one of the premier programs in the Illinois Congressional Debate Organization for the past decade, and over the past four years has established itself as the best team in the state. The Deerfield team has claimed first place at every congressional tournament for the past three years. The team has had a number of the top debaters in the state over the past decade. The Deerfield debate class of 2011 is one of the largest and most talented groups of seniors in ICDA, and has won an unprecedented number of awards at regular season tournaments, the tournament of champions ("TOC"), and the State Tournament. Notable alumni include: Chris Edelman, Gideon Sylvan, Jacob Klein, and Michelle Fox. The 2010-2011 captains are Sam Rothbloom and John Lee. 75.26.235.157 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't know how Chris Edelman, Gideon Sylvan, Jacob Klein, and Michelle Fox are notable. How do I know that they were even part of the team? It does not meet the notability criteria for wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Notability and also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Please justify it. They're relatively unknown. As for the 2010-2011 captains, it's really not necessary. The information will become dated, and they're also not meeting notability criteria.
On a side note, do these people even want their name mentioned? How do you know if they want privacy? Did you ask them? (You shouldn't either way, because none of the people you mentioned meet the notability criteria).
A very fair point. Because I am unable to contact the mentioned alumni, they are not necessary. However, I do feel that mentioning the recent captains is necessary. While it may only apply for a year, it is still information regarding the team. Perhaps the concept that a person "wishes to be notable" should qualify them as notable. For now, I will delete all "questionable material." 75.26.235.157 (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
For reverting vandalism to my talk page. What disruptive accounts with agendas misunderstand is that political theory plays little part in successful editing; the effort to assign political position to my edits is not only erroneous, but embarrasses the vandal. Many thanks and good wishes, JNW (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have declined your speedy on this, because the version you tagged was the result of vandalism; under it in the history was a more respectable version, which I have restored. Notability marginal, perhaps, but at least it has a source and is not speediable. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that adding my name (a 3 time published author) to your author list was vandalism. I do apologize. How do I get my name on your list?
--Chrmdgddss (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry about that, but please also provide a edit summary when deleting large amounts of information. If you want I can revert all of my revisions to your last revision before my first change. This will also result in the reversion of anything you did after my first reversion of the article. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 05:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may be banned for vandalism
What for? I am just spreading a message for the word "kid" to be made obsolete because it is a cold, harsh word and that silly people who often use informal language use it only on boys which is extremely unfair. This deserves to be made aware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.148.236 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted information that I added saying it was dubious and unsourced. I was an eyewitness to what I entered. I can also provide an email from another eyewitness. How would you like me to document this? Stokesdc (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on Jim Keith and Jerry E. Smith, both of which were written by Smith, are full of unsourced "facts" based on personal knowledge. It seems absurd that I cannot add information about them based on personal knowledge. In the unlikely event that someone were to write their biographies, I could be a primary source, but not apparently for Wikipedia. Stokesdc (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn! You're so good! I'm here at Wikipedia since 2006, but I've been a rollbacker for just the past few days! I know that you started Wikipedia since the beginning of July this year, and I think I want to credit you. But it really gets me disappointed because I wanted a chance, but you're just too good! I hope I can take advantage of most of it whenever you are away, because I like to clean up vandalism, because it's really fun to do it! Too bad earlier today there was kind of a controversy by an IP address on external links stuff - just see my talk page about it... Bigtopみんな空の下 (トーク) 04:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I attempt to revert vandalism around the same time you do. Where do you live around at? I might be thinking you might be living in the U.S. west coast or so! Bigtopみんな空の下 (トーク) 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sorry about my unconstructive edit. I was not paying attention and I thought I was in sandbox sorry. By the way what would warrant a level 2+ warning? 71.225.233.158 (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Moved to IP's talkHazard-SJTalk04:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems everyone has this problem of thinking one is "quicker" than the other! We surely, in that case, beat the other and are beaten by the other very often, which shows our persistence! Hazard-SJTalk04:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Weird that he singled me out, considering our interaction consisted of a welcome and a level 1 warning last month. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not an administrator, but the article will be reviewed by an adminstrator who will make the final decision on the subject. Removing the speedy deletion will constitute another warning. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to get to you when it happened, but thanks for reverting all that vandalism on my talk page, my January 2010 archive, my February 2010 archive, and my July 2010 archive. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
