208.86.2.205 (talk) No edit summary |
→stop: i've read the question and reverted my changes, see also your talkpage and reference desk |
||
Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I anoint you a Member of the Wikipedian [[Order of the Pigeon]] an impromptu organization to celebrate excellent pigeon-work in it's many forms on Wikipedia. Thanks for defending the [[Pink Pigeon]]! [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I anoint you a Member of the Wikipedian [[Order of the Pigeon]] an impromptu organization to celebrate excellent pigeon-work in it's many forms on Wikipedia. Thanks for defending the [[Pink Pigeon]]! [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== stop == |
|||
You have deleted my question on the science reference desk with no justification or explanation I have reported you to the administrators I suggest you stop--[[Special:Contributions/208.86.2.205|208.86.2.205]] ([[User talk:208.86.2.205|talk]]) 17:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:09, 14 February 2012
Welcome on my talkpage! A few things before you post here:
- Please sign your comment with four times a ~
- Make a question / comment about a new subject by clicking New section
- If you notice me about an article, create a wiki link to the article
- Questions or comments which are made here, I will answer HERE
King regards, Wiki13
Your question will be answered as quickly as possible
Thanks!
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! Cheers! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No problem,
Wiki13 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
You beat me to vandalism! |
- Thank you!
Wiki13 (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you!
Please provide sources
On page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_Above_and_Beyond the contributor provided no sources. the section is high speculative and presented as fact. Unless you plan to provide the sources for the contributor the section should rightfully be removed. Please provide sources or stop reverting articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.145.228 (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi anonymous user, you're right. I have removed that section because it has any sources. Wiki13 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
RVV
Please do not revert constructive changes without a comment. Thanks 99.120.200.86 (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello anynomous user, links to websites like youtube will soon or later be removed because they add nothing to the article itsself. Wiki13 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
I award this barnstar to u for your hard work & fight against vandalism like recently u reverted the vandalism in A Touch of Frost (TV series) ----- RahulMothiya (Talk) 13:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
Nominative Determinism
Hey there, as a recent editor of Nominative determinism I'm letting you know if you're not watching the page that an anonymous IP editor is intent on consistently deleting content from it, so if you're up to it, it'd be great if you could monitor any changes on that page to minimize this vandal's impact. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Removing original research is *not* vandalism. Please refer to WP:NOTVAND. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- As far I see in the article's history there's editwar going on, and i would suggest a protection for this page until there's consensus for removing the content by the IP. Wiki13 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Possible Vandalism
Hello there Wiki13, you recently made an 'edit' to War in Afghanistan (2001-present) in which you deleted a section titled the 2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive. I believe this may be a form of vandalism as it is hardly constructive in removing important events that relate to the article. I however, believe this was all done in good faith and you merely made a mistake. Please do not be so careless and respect all articles and their relating histories or I will report you for vandalism against this page.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wiki13 actually reverted vandalism, which you subsequently reinstated, thereby removing almost an entire section. Please look again, and an apology to Wiki13 would be nice. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No you are wrong, Wiki13 actually deleted 2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive that is what I am referring to. He did not undo it he deleted it!! If there was anything else that I reinstated then it was not my intention, however, I wanted to reinstate that article after he deleted it. Thankyou.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- See my talk page for a response. Your claim is nonsense, but I hate to repeat myself. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
About time to go here?. Thanks for your effort in vandalism patrol! TBloemink talk 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC) |
Your rollback request
Hello Wiki13, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 17:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Not Vandalism
You reverted an edit that saying that it was possible vandalism, but it was not vandalism [1]. Please be more careful. 71.255.88.243 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello anonymous user, please look more carefully, i didn't said it was vandalism. The thing i wrote in the summary was reverting possible vandalism and not reverting vandalism. Regards, Wiki13 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
POV
Christian terrorism article, caught my keyboard by accident but have never seen a revert conducted so fast, by you! However other than the accidental hitting of the enter key, the Norway addition to that article is total crap and just a POV, it should not be there refer to the Norway attacks article and sources. Stating mad mans actions are religious is abhorrent.--88.104.24.43 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's possible you think it's crap, but deleting a whole section without reason can be seen by others as vandalism. Wiki13 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Spare me your retarded sandbox warning.
I provided an explanation. It's mentioned in the bottom. People like you make editors afraid to edit for fear of retarded sandbox warnings. --68.45.60.20 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- It might be better to stay nice to other editors. Just a friendly hint - TBloemink talk 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry to have caused you discomfort. Hopefully next time things work out better. You are welcome to ask for help here anytime. Kind regards, Wiki13 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Isaac Clarke fails Notability , other Wikipedia standards
See this edit that will explain everything (if not, ask the user Rehevkor who was first to redirect this article).
Now revert yourself and apologize to me. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Basically, it's a Wikia-style article. Go and take ONE look at it, come on. You seriously owe me "I'm sorry" on my talk page, I'm so fed of people accusing me of "vandalism", this is just idiotic. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Is it REALLY so hard to say "I'm sorry"? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I looked ath the page and you were right about it, it misses the lay-out of a normal Wikipedia article. At all, it was (maybe) a bad revert, but i think it is not neccesary to apologize because of 1 mistake. Wiki13 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Note: i removed the warning of your talkpage. Wiki13 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
blocked users
when a user keeps deleting their block thing, what do you do? it doesn't seem like just reverting it over and over is worthwhile? Glacialfox (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Glacialfox, before you posted this mesaage i requested on WP:AIV to block his talkpage also.
Wiki13 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just a observation, the request was directly removed by a bot. An admin who just saw what was going on there changed the block settings and removed the ability to edit his talk page during the block. Wiki13 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Re: January 2012
What exactly are you talking about? -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Waywardhorizons, can you tell me what's wrong? I don't what you mean. Wiki13 (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- After research, i saw you meant your talkpage. I think it's problem began after the revert of 19:25. I accidently reverted your revert, and after that i thougt you're were vandalising. Sorry for the inconvience and sorry for the inrelevant notices on your talkpage. Wiki13 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. :) -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- After research, i saw you meant your talkpage. I think it's problem began after the revert of 19:25. I accidently reverted your revert, and after that i thougt you're were vandalising. Sorry for the inconvience and sorry for the inrelevant notices on your talkpage. Wiki13 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
It's almost not worth Vandal-patrolling when you're online; you've beaten me to about ten or 12 dozen reverts today alone. For your exceptional service to upholding the nature of the Wiki, it's my very good honor to award you this Barnstar. Achowat (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hello, please be careful not to revert editors who remove unsourced negative commentary about living people as you did here. The information removed went against WP:BLP and the anonymous editor was correct to remove it. I'm not sure how Igloo works; perhaps it picked up that the anonymous editor had broken the ref tag and that's what you thought you were correcting. I presume it has the option to preview your actual changes before saving? --BelovedFreak 17:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it was the broken ref tag which triggered Igloo. I am working with Igloo since a few days, but i've seen multiple edits which were not vandalism. Thanks to your message I will keep sharp in monitoting edits.
. Wiki13 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Although I more or less understand
why you undid an edit at Talk:United States, it did revert to my last edit after all, which I can't complain about, undoing anything on a talk page should (opinion) only be done if leaving it will have serious repercussions. I believe that what you removed was a good faith edit by someone to whom English was not his/her native language. They are trying to make a point, and just not doing a good job. Yet. Removing it seems, to me, to be silencing a voice trying to be heard. Also a voice that I happen to not argee with, so I'm not going to get too bent out of shape. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Carptrash, the edit of the anonymous user wasn't related to article in the first place. Second, sooner or later the edit will be removed from the talkpage, because it isn't related to the article at all. --Wiki13 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well the edit was, or seemed to be, part of a discussion as to whether or not "American" is an appropriate term for a citizen of the United States, which is what the article is. Carptrash (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
bahrani people
ashrf1979 puts a name of an author as reference but NO BOOK name at all one "reference" he put is arnold heleer page 441 plus two unreferenced subsections
you should have looked at the pages history befores undoing my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.157.122 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Not vandalism
That IP's edit to Cars 2 was not vandalism. You need to realize that character lists are not appropriate on Wikipedia. I reverted your edit. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 18:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Cutecutecuteface2000, I didn't knew that. Thank you for your message. I still don't know everything here, so there's something to learn for me ;-) --Wiki13 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Please Review
My edits were made to preserve the neutrality of Wikipedia. Your reversion and subsequent warning of me enables the publishing of opinion material, dead links and defamatory language.
Please reevaluate as I believe you incorrectly targeted me for vandalism while protecting the actual vandal/ policy violator Captchamirror (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
A Discussion that may be of interest to you
Hey there, Wiki13, there is a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Re-formatting/Discussion#CVU Guideline Proposal. As one of the hardest working Anti-vandals that I've run into, I'm sure the Project would love to hear your imput. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
For your contributions to reduce vandalism. And for beating me several times. Joydeep (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC) |
For you!
The Userpage Shield | ||
For prompt reversion to vandalism on my userpage. Keep up the great work! RA0808 talkcontribs 21:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
Felix Leiter
I'm not sure what you're playing at with your reversion, but stop it and don't do it again. And don't ever accuse me of vandalising an article ever again. I look forward to you deleting the message on my talk page straight away. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, i want to say it's a mistake and that happens anyway. Second, your message here, about my mistake, is a bit aggressive. I will remove the message and I want to say sorry for causing you discomfort. --Wiki13 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks very much—and apologies for the sharp tone, it's been a bitch of a day. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Serial Vandal
Hi there, I noticed recently you came across a problem with 81.109.92.88. I just thought I would let you know of the previous problems I have had with this user and his previous IP's 82.5.224.162, 81.109.92.81 and 81.109.94.184. This user has had numerous bans of his many carnations and although he dosen't appear to mindfully vandalise pages in order to cause disruption, he does appear to attempt to force his material on to pages which the majority of the time either dumb's down the article, or he will change words, or add incorrect infomation. All attempts to communicate with this user of the past couple of years have failed, and he simply just delete's messages from his talk page. There was a case against him to see if we could get an indefinate block, and there was a case as well against him using sock puppets, Anyhow I just though I would bring this to your attention. Regards Footballgy (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Anointment
![]() |
Order of the Pigeon |
I anoint you a Member of the Wikipedian Order of the Pigeon an impromptu organization to celebrate excellent pigeon-work in it's many forms on Wikipedia. Thanks for defending the Pink Pigeon! Sadads (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |