This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Optakeover/Archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Vandalism to Catholic High Wiki article
Hey! There has been recent vandalism to the 'Hair Check' and 'School Anthem' subheadings under the 'Culture' section by user Checkforpulse. I was wondering if you or I could do anything to prevent this? Oh yes, please rate the Wiki under the Discussion tab while you're at it. Thanks! --i shape myself (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalismonly, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoetytalk08:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Request Un-autoblock
Please consider my unblocking. I live in Singapore, where IP addresses gets shared around (Can't really explain well enough because I don't really know the jargon well). I need to continue to patrol for vandalism, so my unblocking is very appreciated. Optakeover (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Well, I'm patrolling for vandalism now. If you think its not vandalism, I'm sincerely apologise for my mistakes. You can see on my userpage that if I make mistakes, let me know. Anyway, you can just revert it and remove the vandalism warning because I say so. Sorry, I do make mistakes (like everybody). Optakeover (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, don't worry about it, not at all. but remember I'm not a vandal so if you are, stop watching me. Cheers! Kalajan18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi - you deleted my changes. I am actually trying to update this page - not vandalize it. All of the changes were required changes as the content on Wikipedia is no longer accurate. I inadvertently broke a reference trying to add a new one. Can you reinstate these changes to the "History" "Software" and "Timeline" sections - if you do I am finished with my edits. I promise.It took a long time to write up these changes - I'd hate to lose them. I can also verify my identity by phone or e-mail. Thanks in advance.
Hi, thank you for your report. Sorry, I do make mistakes (as you can see from the above talk with Kalajan. I'm very sorry for the mistake and I'll work to rectify it. You may remove the vandalism warning templates from your talk page (otherwise other anti-vandalism patrollers like me might think that you might be on the loose. I can actualy do it for you). Thank you, and once agin sorry about that. Optakeover (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said there on the page. These are not smears against him. Corapi said such in talks himself. In reality, he said the word "orgy" but I tried to clean it up a bit. But again, as I said, if exact references are needed, perhaps the entire sentence should be removed? OfficialVaticanJanitor (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I admit I made a mistake. I accidentally reverted your edit which was completely fine. Please ignore this, and I'm very sorry for that. Thank you for your patience! Optakeover (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(I almost feel sorry for these nitwit vandals, with nothing more interesting to do during the Solstice/Yule/Kwanzaa/etc season.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's because I was given rollback power, so it's an undo at the click of the button. Huggle requires me to have rollback, so I had it. In that case, I used Huggle to revert even more nonsense, but you accidentally reverted my reverts (get it?), so some of the vandalism which I removed came back, but it's okay. So, I used the rollback function manually to do this: [1]. Optakeover (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily your edit/revert, but I accidentally restored a single IP edit. Me using Twinkle. Thanks again. --Efe (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the information was not written in proper tone. Secondly, I'm doubtful of its factual accuracy. Please include a source (as I see it, the source link that is already there doesn't suggest it, and that what you added is completely new). Also, even if there is evidence to it, the information must be written out in an appropriate manner. Thank you. In the meantime, I will remove the vandalism template away. Optakeover(Talk)03:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hammer Album: Inside Out
Read the article. Portions of it makes no sense. I connected the sentences and omitted unnecessary words out of context. Before you go undoing edits, please do your homework. It is not correct as it is. I fixed it. It's justified. Geesh! 69.129.170.102 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, it happens. You're the most mature about it and not out to have an edit war or "power-trip" at least, so I respect that. Happy Holiday(s)! 69.129.170.102 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Renaissancee
Hi, although the edits by 76.166.221.159 are uncivil, I am not sure they are vandalism as such. I believe there is a little more leeway on talk pages. I too am using Huggle, and it is all too easy to press the red triangle. Springnuts (talk) 12:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
We all are too busy with anti-vandalism patrol that we can't possibly get WP:CIVILITY into him without some time. If he continues to be uncivil and gets reported, let's all see each other at WP:AIV to sort this out. Perhaps we'll give our comments.Optakeover(Talk)12:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I took it as a bad faith entry (based on how it was written) so I went ahead and removed it. I'm sorry that you said it's not vandalism. Next time, I'll try to be more careful but you also need to watch your tone when speaking sometimes. Optakeover(Talk)02:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Not vandalism
You refer to everything I do as vandalism, despite my being right every time. About Shawn Lee, I met him in Berlin Germany and spoke with him while he was part of a tour of NFL players visiting US armed forces overseas. The next day I read in the Stars and Stripes newspaper about him injuring his hand in trying to remove a section of the Berlin wall as a souvenir. That occurred only an hour or two after I had spoken to him.
About Joe Namath, it was well known that he wore knee braces. It was somewhat well known that wearers of the knee braces wore something like nylon hose to keep the braces from chaffing. I speak from experience; I wore the braces and hosiery myself after knee surgery. That is the reason whey it wasn't totally out of line for Namath to do a commercial about Panty hose.
I have no idea why my comments about the Dade Massacre are considered vandalism. According to Frank Laumer's books there was a pond to the soldier’s right, and Joseph Sprague escaped to it. When I learned about the layout of the ambush it immediately struck me as the Battle of Lake Trasmenae in miniature, an army laying in wait along a road, waiting for a force to come marching along the road, attacking them while they are still in marching order, the ambushers having to remain silent and hidden until the whole force was opposite the whole ambushing force, with a body of water to the right to prevent retreat in that direction.
The only vandalism I have seen has been vandalism committed against my perfectly good entries. I am rapidly losing faith in the Wikipedia system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.53.164 (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The reason why you were given 'vandalism' warnings was because that I use Huggle, which is an anti vandalism tool and every time I spot vandalism and press the 'revert and warn' button, it automatically sends out a vandalism warning. There are others, like page blanking, factual fallacies, and so and so forth but these types of warnings must be used manually. Therefore, you're edits are 'said' to be vandalism. Next time, I shall start using more specific warning types.
However, I've taken a look at the edits that I reverted and I have to say that even if I'm not an anti-vandalism patroller, I would definitely remove them. Firstly, you're edits here are quite awkward. I'll applaud you for giving an edit summary. However, it was unreferenced. Also, your edits mentioned that his hand was injured for 'removing a souvenir piece of the Berlin Wall'. Based on WP:REDFLAG: "Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrasing..", it deserves proper source citation. Secondly, over at this edit, once again you gave an edit summary. However, the edit summary says: "Ask Frank Laumer, who wrote the book..". That is not good enough. What book is it? What is the book's ISBN number? And anyway, who is Frank Laumer? Also, please look at the paragraph which you removed in that edit:
"The ambush that the Seminoles prepared for the soldiers can be compared as a version of the ambush prepared for the Romans by Hannibal and his Carthaginians during the Second Punic War at the Battle of Lake Trasimene although in miniature. Both featured an army marching on a road attacked by surprise from the left while a body of water lay to the right."
Compare this to an excerpt from your edit summary:
"...pond to the right of the soldiers..."
The paragraph is trying to say that in both cases of the Dade Massacre and the quoted battle during the Second Punic War that there was a body of water to the right of both units of troops. Therefore, as a matter of fact your edit summary confirms what was written in the paragraph! However, it clashed head on by the removal of the paragraph which your edit summary aptly proves correct. Either way, the evidence related to your edit is quite vague. You should have laid down the source information properly.
I sincerely apologise for the confusion. Next time, I shall use warnings that 100% suit the type of problem with the edit, instead of pressing the auto-warn button which gives a default 'vandalism' template. I also want to applaud your effort in being bold. However, your edits still warranted grounds for revert, because your source quotations were just too weak. Also, please understand that the system is completely faultless on this (the system isn't perfect, but this error wasn't their deliberate fault). I am an anti-vandalism patroller by voluntarism (see WP:CVU) and any mistakes made by an anti-vandalism patroller is his alone, and in this case, mine. I hope that you won't get discouraged by this, and continue to edit boldly. Just remember to keep in mind what I just mentioned. It may be hard, but it's necessary. In the meantime, I'll also remove the warnings I gave. Please carry on editing the pages like you have been before. Sorry once again, and thank you very much for your report. Optakeover(Talk)16:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
