User talk:Tommy2010: Difference between revisions

I reverted an edit by a user who created an article because he blanked the article without explanation. Was this edit vandalism? Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No because it was done in a way not designed to compromise Wikipedia's integrity. Why'd you remove this? Tommy! 17:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, because I don't have a lot of experience using rollback. I've only have used the rollback feature for 2 weeks. I still need to learn how to be a better rollbacker so I can make less mistakes with rollback. Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, don't be too hard on yourself. :) You're learning, you can never be penalized for that. Tommy! 17:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Wayne Olajuwon chat 17:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit by accident on the NK Rudar Trbovlje article. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. Tommy! 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem if you click the revert and warn button on Huggle? Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with it, but for inexperienced users it just may be easier to get the hang of it. In fact, I use both methods. Ie- Manual + automatic. Tommy! 21:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the revert and warn button on Huggle, the edit is reverted and the user is warned a lot quicker than manually warning the user. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, but don't worry about speed. That'll come naturally. Tommy! 22:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and why do users keep beating me to vandalism? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because with lots of experience you know exactly what to look for to revert without even reading all the diff. For example, for me, any time you see  !!- just revert. That's just one example. But like I told you, don't force yourself to go fast. With time you will pick it up and be able to know exactly what to revert and be able to quickly read the diff and know if the edit was done to help or hurt Wikipedia. It may also just be your internet connection. You need a reliable and decent connection for huggle to really work, otherwise it can be frustrating! Tommy! 21:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the most recent edit by 90.210.237.135 because he didn't cite a reference by the information he put. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info he put? He removed content on those reverts. Nothing wrong with the reverts or warnings, but it was removal of content without explanation. Tommy! 21:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so, why were you talking about references?

Because that was another edit that I reverted from that IP Address. Wayne Olajuwon chat 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Im sorry. Ya, he was probably just putting wrong info... 2x vandal, assume bad faith :) good job Tommy! 22:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Wayne Olajuwon chat 01:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know I've added a comment to your DYK nomination for Sue Torres here [1] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i just try to show lal the article someone give it invisibility

Sorry, use preview if you're testing. Tommy! 17:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a user changes information on another user's page such as this edit without the user knowing it's true, even with an edit summary, is the edit unconstructive? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't see that diff. However, my rule of thumb:

• If an anon or new user posts a message on under user's talk page that does not seem constructive and polite, revert. If it is substantial, but just rude, do not revert; let the user decide what to do. If it's a personal attack, even if there is a substantive message, revert and warn.
• If it is a user page, this is very tricky. Many times a user logs out but still edits their user page. Why im not sure, but it happens. Other times a user will make an account and make an article but will put it on their User: page, probably out of confusion. For User: pages, revert only it appears to be a personal attack, or blanking. Tommy! 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that there's a discussion about this topic on WP:ANI? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thread? Tommy! 19:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jojhutton has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

!

You're missing the last steps of WP:SNOW/HOW. –xeno^talk 21:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Thanks Tommy! 22:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - No annoyance caused - Keep up the good work yourself! Vrenator (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

muchas gracias Tommy! 21:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering something about pending changes: if you review an edit that is not acceptable, but isn't vandalism, such as a poorly templated change or mislink, would you, and should anybody in this situation, unaccept the change? ^{Here's the only} _{new, improved} Finalius! 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just undo it as any other edit then, with a reason in the summary. Tommy! 20:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You closed a post on AN/I saying the user had been blocked for 3RR.[3] The post on AN/I, however, is not a complaint about 3RR; the complaint deals with the user abusing editing tools, and the complaint is a request to have these editing tools removed or blocked. The 3RR complaint was handled after being properly placed on the 3RR board.[4] Additional information about the user, including his involvement in edit warring, to support blocking of the tools is appropriate, but that is not the issue raised at AN/I. Please read carefully before closing complaints that have not been resolved. Thank you. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. So he misused Twinkle once, and was warned by me. That alone in-actionable. It's long term abuse of the tool that results in a user being black listed. Since he's already blocked, don't beat a dead horse Tommy! 23:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please find something else to do. It's not a debate, it's a request for blocking, that's all. There are diffs you obviously didn't read, so your analysis is at fault, in spite of your clever use of a wikipedia essay. Let it be answered as a request for blocking, let it be answered by an administrator, let it die without any more off target input on your part. Enough, just put the shovel down, leave the horse in its grave, leave the lame wikipedia essays in theirs, too, please--communicating with a professional level of English doesn't usually require such references. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]