Cannot rollback last edit to Psychoanalysis by 212.219.190.164 (talk · block · contribs) because someone else has edited or rolled back the page already.
Last edit was by Peter Orme (talk · contributions).
Thanks for the mindless posting on my page. Perhaps you can clarify what you are banging on about ?? Peter Orme
The message above is what is seen when attempting to revert vandalism after someone else has already done so.
I presumed that the context (including the edit summary "you're too fast for me") would make it utterly pellucid what I was "banging on" about: Kudos for doing something useful. Please do just go back to whatever you were doing before. I'll not trouble you again with oblique messages.
many thanks for sorting out this page this morning. I think both of us were on the job! at the same time Children from a rival school plus our own kids have been at it
Thanks again
Alun Thomas Head of ICT Ysgol Gwynllyw
Reporting persistent vandalism to admins
Go to WP:AIV, read the directions (admins will likely block only if they've vandalised after bv/blatantvandal,test3 or test4, and within the last few hours), copy the appropriate template, and add it to the "User/IP reported" section.
In my experience, they'll be blocked within ~1-20 minutes.
i'm in a computer lab at school, kids at the computers next to mine are vandalizing pages, i'm trying to get them to stop, thanks for helping me out, i'm new ^^ --Chain Impact13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the pic the other night thinking that was the main ariticle for the film. Today I finally saw a seperate article just on the film and switched the image. Apologize for that.
My account was definitely not compromised. Exactly what edits do you refer to? Removal of links added by MillerCenter (talk·contribs)? I already explained my actions at User talk:Rjensen; I was under an impression that it was a spam-only account, and in any case he failed to discuss their addition, even after a five-minute block to get his attention. Removal of a message by 72.49.182.192 (talk·contribs) from my talk page? The message was a (poorly formatted) request to upload a file I couldn't even access (let alone verify its copyright status). I did respond on his talk page, saying that I can't and won't do it and why (and removed the message from my talk page as inappropriate), and he still kept asking so I had to respond in a more final way. Perhaps the change of block length of several users? If some of my actions were inappropriate or against the policy, I apologize for that. - Mike Rosoft11:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop claiming that content differences is vandalism. I think I know what vandalism is, as I have been here a lot longer than you. If you want to address this in a moderated tone, I will do so, but your screaming of "vandalism" will not lead me to being cooperative. User:Zoe|(talk)22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral - don't cross swords with this admin - trigger happy ain't the word!
I thought you said you removed this? I suggest you just blank this section, or archive it. Both are appropriate responses. It shows you've read the message, even if you didn't choose to respond. Best of luck in the future. Ben Aveling11:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. OMG. I read what you reverted (on Tramp). I didn't realize that other user was also having a "conversation" at the same time. Thanks for watching my back. Turlo Lomon11:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. This really seems to be an admin who has let power go to her head. It fully justifies what I have been saying about her failure to assume good faith. I think it's more than justified to complain becuase this kind of thing will seriously put people of editing. Jeffpw, I am going to try and get the time to build a full report with full citation and will notify you as soon as I have placed it at WP:ANI. Once again thanks very much.Pedro1999a | Talk 08:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I see. Be careful with your words, and think about your posts before submitting them. I certainly agree with you about her, but it would be helpful if you had posted more examples of incivility. Jeffpw10:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried to be as moderate as I could be. Sorry I didn't get many examples. If you have any perhaps you could add them.Pedro1999a | Talk 10:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, you will probably have made her consider her recent actions in a new light. If this causes her to slow down, and take a more user friendly approach to her function, it is all for the good. Jeffpw11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Re: [1], I am not an admin, and have not had any personal interaction with Zoe. My first two observations after reading the AN/I thread are 1) while I feel I understand where you are coming from, you may be being a little too touchy for the oft tough world of WP editing and discussion; 2) take a look at Zoe's user page where she lists her philosophy. From this blurb, it does sound like she might be more focused on the community among admins than upon the WP community at large.
I have found that there are a wide variety of admins here. I recently listed my own first AN/I followed by a checkuser. I thought I had a very serious matter to bring up. Virtually no-one commented on the AN/I for several days, except to imply that maybe I should submit a checkuser request. I did so, and it was soon declined. I was disappointed. Then, w/o any more discussion, my AN/I was archived by a bot. Before I noticed this had happened, an admin noticed, resurrected it, and left a quick note that s/he would look in to my AN/I. Details continued for a while ... The bottom line result was that the accounts I originally raised concern about were all blocked for an indefinite amount of time since admins determined that the accounts I inquired about were reincarnations of a previously indefinitely blocked user. So, in my situation, some admins brushed my concern off as something that couldn't/shouldn't be dealt with (due to lack of archive information) while others took a fair amount of time to work with me, investigate the matter, and ended up implementing the "right" decision. If I am not mistaken, the primary admin who ended up helping me with my AN/I is one who, perhaps like Zoe, is perceived to be a very strong willed, sometimes prone to short answers, and yet, also a very good admin.
May I suggest that when and if you run in to another tension point with Zoe, we, the WP community, deal with it then, while it is happening? It may be that she just wants/needs to move on, and maybe this time, you need to too. However, if this truly is a pattern, the next time you notice it, you'll even have a previous AN/I in the archives to point to.
You're most welcome! I am not yet convinced that you brought this topic up in the wrong place. Perhaps you should start a discussion about whether the AN/I page is appropriate for complaints about specific admins on the AN/I's talk page. I would hope that the line you suggest they remove, if they don't like where you reported this, would only be removed after a discussion on its talk page anyway. Keesiewondertalk11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, typically, the software will include the contents of the page on an edit summary. In general, if there is a speedy deletion tag on a page, you don't need to create a talk page to request deletion as well. It just makes another page for the admins to delete. Thanks, NawlinWiki13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry! It's just the SD was contested by the author, so I started the debate on why to SD, as per the instructions on the template to discuss on the talk page. Sorry to create more work!! Pedro1999a | Talk 14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant creating a talk page after it was deleted. I've seen talk pages on speedies get missed all the time. Also, the hangon and talk page stuff is for the person defending it, passing wikipedians don't need to argue about it unless they think it should be kept. -- febtalk16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Point. I'll revise my strategy on making the first post on contested SD's and leave it to the author. Thanks and ....Happy Editing!Pedro1999a | Talk 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deepest apologies. Looking at this diff it looked like you entered the vandalism. I see now it was historical, and had been missed previously until it's reversion by User:Therequiembellishere. It was unfortunate that you had made the prior edit and got caught up. Again my apologies for the error. Grovels away !Pedro | Talk 08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I have been trying to keep Charlie Crist's page free of vandals but it looks like i missed something while cleaning up some references. I agree with your position on blatant vandals by the way. Thanks for your quick reply. --Napnet13:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That should do for now ;) I guess WP:CITY would be a good place to centrally discuss this, I'll start up a discussion at the weekend once I have more time. Thanks/wangi21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More time? Blimey, I'd have thought dicking around on Wikipedia would be your first priority! smile! Seriously, yes, an open debate there seems good. And I agree - how interesting will that be..... give the RC patrollers (me included!!!)something to think about possibly...Pedro | Talk 21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, you thanked me for reverting your edit to Bordeaux. I can to a fair extent see your point re flags for twin towns/sister cities which I hadn't really thought about before I reverted. Actually, the main reason I really reverted was that you hadn't put anything into the edit summary — one of my pet hates, I have to say! I often do revert edits that give no explanation for removal of content, and I would not have immediately reverted if there had been an explanation. Anyway, I did see later that there is a real issue as detailed in the essay, Edinburgh and Vancouver that should be addressed, and I did mean to involve myself with the discussion but I wasn't able to get my thoughts together yesterday.--A bit iffy09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki Wiffle Bat
This award (none of the barnstars seemed to fit just right) is for your excellently articulated and defended defense of the flags on the Edinburgh page. Rarely have I seen an argument of such quality during a discussion page dispute. Cheers! GlamdringCookies00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thank you for your kind words. I truly appreciate them.
As far as your scored out comment is concerned, I am a little distressed at your edit. I had intended, and had thought that I had achieved, a very gentle explanation of how the project works. Certainly it was not my intention to bite anyone, and I am saddened if it appeared that I did. I suppose we all make mistakes.--Anthony.bradbury22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")
Emphasis mine. And perhaps you should examine it too before quoting back. This not a flame war - I found your summary to be in breach of a guideline but that is all. If you didn't find your tone uncivil that's up to you. It is only a guideline after all, and we all have different opinions on what may or may not be civil. Sorry to have wasted your time. Pedro | Talk 10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent talk-page comment: "Emphasis mine. And perhaps you should examine it too before quoting back."[2] could be viewed as rude. One might infer that you were mocking the user for his 'emphasis mine' caveat. Thanks.
See how easy it is to make such accusations? But, beyond annoying the person at whom they are directed, what do such comments accomplish, really? I suspect that this is the basis for the “ongoing” requisite.
Anyways, next time you scold another user for a minor policy violation, don't violate policy in the process. That’s silly.--Xiaphias11:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. It actually isn't worth fighting over, but seeing as the article seems to have been using that spelling by consensus we may as well leave it like that. --Guinnog09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. You can see how edit wars end up on things like this! It's a British Ship so we use Br Eng, but an American rediscovered Her so we use American Eng. Ughhhh! Of such things are Wikipedia made! I genuinely thought that artifcat was Br Eng but I see the derivation is Latin (Arte Factum) so your spelling is dead right. Hope to see you around the 'pedia again and Happy Editing.Pedro | Chat 09:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually just a question of checking the diffs far enough back. In my case, it was easy because I knew for a fact that my last edit from yesterday was good, so I just looked at the diff between that and the current version. Since there was nothing but silliness, it was trivial to remove. It would have been more difficult if there were any other good edits aside from partial reversions between. TCC(talk)(contribs)19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to RMS Titanic, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Matteo (talk@) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
