| Revision as of 14:36, 5 June 2009 view sourceAmaury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,545 editsm →Concern← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:03, 5 June 2009 view source Fritzpoll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,706 edits →Concern: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| :Just a quick note regarding another couple of your reversions re ] I had asked a random contributor from tr-wiki to doublecheck some edits which looked like vandalism and they appeared ok. I have left the editor a note regarding editsummaries and references. But they seem to be good faith edits although looking like vandalism. It does need monitoring though. ] (]) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | :Just a quick note regarding another couple of your reversions re ] I had asked a random contributor from tr-wiki to doublecheck some edits which looked like vandalism and they appeared ok. I have left the editor a note regarding editsummaries and references. But they seem to be good faith edits although looking like vandalism. It does need monitoring though. ] (]) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks for the concern, Fritz. Just so you know, I didn't revert it just because. I checked previous revisions and saw another user had reverted the IP's edits, so I thought that it was vandalism. Just wanted to clear it up that I didn't do it just because it was an IP address. My sincere apologies, though. - ] (]) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | ::Thanks for the concern, Fritz. Just so you know, I didn't revert it just because. I checked previous revisions and saw another user had reverted the IP's edits, so I thought that it was vandalism. Just wanted to clear it up that I didn't do it just because it was an IP address. My sincere apologies, though. - ] (]) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::Yes, and I'm examining that reversion as well - base your judgement on the edit up for reversion, not the contributor's history, and if you're not sure it is vandalism, it clearly isn't ]. Take care, and best wishes ] (]) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:03, 5 June 2009
It is currently 12:40 where I am
January 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of January 2009 discussions can be found here.
February 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of February 2009 discussions can be found here.
March 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of March 2009 discussions can be found here.
April 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of April 2009 discussions can be found here.
May 2009
Discussions archived
An archive of May 2009 discussions can be found here.
June 2009
Apparition's reviews
- This discussion is being continued from this subject.
La Niñera (Mexicana)
You requested speedy deletion of this article as patent nonsense. It is definitely not total nonsense, and I have accordingly declined the SD request. LadyofShalott 02:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
San Francisco International Airport
Hello, I added a destination on that page which will currently be served by Northwest Airlines and it seems that it keeps getting removed. Since I can't figure out what's going on i'd like to let you handle this matter. here is the link to the source that justifies my entry. http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/asia/vietnam/2009/04/06/203162/U.S.-Northwest.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.47.123 (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Concern
With respect to this reversion, you reverted a good faith contribution as though it were vandalism with a rollback. Per WP:ROLLBACK, regardless of the tool that you use, rollback is for obvious vandalism only. What makes it worse is that the edit was correct and improved the article. Reverting something just because it is done by an IP is unacceptable, and you are warned that repeated errors of this nature will result in your removal of rollback, and your consequent inability to use Huggle. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Just a quick note regarding another couple of your reversions re User:Zibi Fer I had asked a random contributor from tr-wiki to doublecheck some edits which looked like vandalism and they appeared ok. I have left the editor a note regarding editsummaries and references. But they seem to be good faith edits although looking like vandalism. It does need monitoring though. Agathoclea (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the concern, Fritz. Just so you know, I didn't revert it just because. I checked previous revisions and saw another user had reverted the IP's edits, so I thought that it was vandalism. Just wanted to clear it up that I didn't do it just because it was an IP address. My sincere apologies, though. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm examining that reversion as well - base your judgement on the edit up for reversion, not the contributor's history, and if you're not sure it is vandalism, it clearly isn't obvious vandalism. Take care, and best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the concern, Fritz. Just so you know, I didn't revert it just because. I checked previous revisions and saw another user had reverted the IP's edits, so I thought that it was vandalism. Just wanted to clear it up that I didn't do it just because it was an IP address. My sincere apologies, though. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)