User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Thank you

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I present you with this Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Thanks for your help. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the vandalism reversions Tide. Let me know if there's anything I'm supposed to be doing that I'm not to discourage or clamp down on this kind of thing. I haven't had it much before. I thought everyone loved me... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Of course I will give you any help I can. I really didn't dig deep into why that individual took those actions. So I probably won't be much help in how to avoid them. When it happens to me I just hope they get bored and move along. See ya Tiderolls 06:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Roger that. I have no idea what the vandalism is about. Somehow I feel a teensy bit responsible for people having to revert it. Especially now on my ummm "special" meta-talk page. :) Thanks again for your help. I will go about my business which may or may not be a good thing... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the reversion thing. RC watching is my main contribution here as I'm good for little else :) I looked at your page history and noticed the user registered two names to use only once (so far). That kinda tells me that they have no real issue or they'd come to you in a more forthright manner. If they can't say what's really on their mind I wouldn't be too concerned. Regards Tiderolls 06:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your seemingly tireless efforts in reverting vandalism and for leaving me bored after reverting 3 vandals in a row... just as I was about to do the same thing! HJMitchell You rang? 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! I'm sure our paths will cross again before long! Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL....Thanks...I apologize for hogging the button. Seriously, you know how it is. It's so blatant sometimes that you just can't leave the version you see. Regards. Tiderolls 19:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll do the new pages since I can't get a revert in edgeways on the recent changes! It's a hard life this wiki gnomeish business! Have fun! HJMitchell You rang? 19:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your choice, of course. But we need all the eyes we can get on RC. I don't even want to think about what is getting by me. New pages is a challenge too, I'm guessing. So you'll most likely be busy wherever you land. Tiderolls 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ENEMIES WITHIN

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

Enemies Within did not deliberatly attempt to comprimise the integrity of Wikipedia. According to your rules vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. I did not do any of those things. I made an edit adding factual information and gave my source. I did everything in good faith. Brown Brother Harriman has a lot of evil to hide I was just speaking on that. My input was well-intended, it was not outright bull**** or vandalism I was reinserting the truth, vandalism should at least be a lie. Now, I would like to add to Brown Brothers Harriman without being labeled a vandal and threaten with banishment.Enemies within (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to politely outline your position. Since you have made some effort to communicate I most likely will not revert you again if you decide to re-add the info. However, until you provide reliable sources for the additions you want to make they may be reverted by other editors. By way of explanation of my reversions I offer this (from WP:VAN) "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is ". You provided no edit summary, provided no reliable source for your edits and did not contact me after my first warning on your talk page. Please make some effort to contact the regular editors on that article before trying to re-add the info. Achieving concensus is one of the most binding policies on Wikipedia. I hope this helps...good luck with your future editing. Tiderolls 13:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to revert these edits unless proper references from reliable sources are provided. They are serious allegations and require appropriately detailed references that actually support the points being made. Continuing to add them in the face of a clear lack of consensus from other editors is disruptive and could lead to a violation of the three revert rule. – ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, ukexpat. I think our positions are identical. Please understand that my "not revert" statement above was in response to the editor finally offering some communication. I'm still holding on to good faith...though my strength is on the wane. Tiderolls 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks tide rolls for a respectful reply and an opportunity to improve myself. I disagree with the other guys opinion of my edit of Brown Brothers Harriman, it was not outright vandalism and it is not a vandalism only account as Drmies condemned me to. I was just concerned about the truth being published on wikipedia. I use wikipedia daily and rely on good info. The reference that I used to edit was just as direct as the reference used by the arthur of the article. I'm sure you have never checked the arthur's sources either or maybe you have but did you check mine. Besides, "ranting" as another vandal cop called it, is not vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I was speaking facts which the arthur did not want revealed. Avril Harriman wikipedia article and other wikipedia articles reveal these facts, so why shouldn't BBH. Wikipedia should not allow companies to suppress the truth. Wikiscanner has proven that companies omit and edit published articles to slant historical facts about their company. Anyway, I do agree I should not have keep reinserting after being warned. Good day Enemies within (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest...I have not checked out any of the references for the article as it stood before you edited. That was not the task I was involved with at that moment. If you have concerns about the references or any of the facts in the article then take them to the discussion page of the article. That's the reason there is a discussion page. A word of caution, though...simply listing the "The National Archives and Library of Congress" as references will not get you far. You will need sources that specifically support your proposed additions. Also, check the link in my original post for a definition of what constitutes a reliable source. Please take User:ukexpat's caveat seriously...you do not want to reap the fallout from transgressing the three revert rule. My best advice would be to develop a concensus before trying to re-add your edits. You've been most polite here and have not tried to reinstate the edits in question. Thank you very much for your patience and restraint. Tiderolls 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

Hey Tide Rolls, do you think sterner measures are appropriate for the IP whom you just warned here? Truly, it's a vandalism-account. Thanks, and Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I just slapped a vandal 3 warning on 'em for one previous edit, but looking through the history, it seems to be a vandalism-only account. What do you think? Drmies (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Roll Tide". It appears that you are pobably right about that IP. The thing is, to get further along would mean enlisting the help (by making a very convincing case) of an admin. Usually these drive by editors get bored and vanish before one can get the info together, find an interested admin, have them check it out, consult with others...etc. If they have to block the IP enough the admins will examine the circumstances and act accordingly. If you want to persue it I admire your "stick-to-it-ivness". See ya' round Tiderolls 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As to your addendum...pretty much the same answer. Its just a matter of would the effort yield a quicker result? It's a toss-up I'm thinking. Regards Tiderolls 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I did notify a friendly administrator. I think they are more hesitant to block IPs than user accounts, but still, it's worth it. Look, that edit of yours was for an article I just got a DYK badge for--that's like having a wedding during the Iron Bowl: it shouldn't be possible. Or legal. Later, Drmies (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're killing me here..LOL Seriously, I think your frustration is experienced by almost every editor as some time or another. Anon editing is a cornerstone at WP....Problematic? Without question. I've just made up my mind to resist fixating on it. That's easy for me (I know) due to the fact I don't make anywhere close to the number of "substantive" edits you and others have made or will make. I just hope you can find your own "zen-editing-mantra"...congrats on the DYK badge, btw...good work! Tiderolls 20:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello and thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page, and in general. Loves Macs (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. That one's blocked indef now...oh well. Live and learn...or not :) Tiderolls 21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fergie1259

You Deleted my post of craig mcewan but left how he "takes it off ginnies for free" on there you hypocrite, mine was more factual and funny i am not pleased —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fergie1259 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur, craig mcewan is a wonderful man, and his treatment on a world renound website reeks of a blatent lack of respect, Wikipedia, i shake my head at thee.

Thanks for the heads up. It's gone now. Tiderolls 21:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

More thanks

Cheers for the revert on my userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. Tiderolls 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld

It's insulting enough that you are ignoring the positive contributions I've been making to that page, now you're calling "vandalism" what's intended as constructive. "Jewish" refers to nationality and I stand behind the constructiveness of this change. I concurDrone2Gather (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the discussion on the talk page, Drone2Gather. Banaticus (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit I reverted had changed the religon of his father from jewish to christian. If your change was accidental it appeared vandalistic. Please do not bring your POV pushing here, Drone2Gather. Apologies if I've muddied the waters, Banaticus, it was purely unintentional. Tiderolls 13:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd have a problem with it, but it's always to good to get positive feedback. You're welcome. Tiderolls 03:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am getting messages

To my knowledge, I am not on a shared network. However, I did not write these ridiculous edits either. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.110.138 (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't know what's going on. Someone made three edits from that IP address in the last 25 minutes. If it wasn't you then I would be at a loss to explain it. You can copy and paste "help me" within double brackets "{{ }}" and someone with more technical abilities might be able to respond. Thanks. Tiderolls 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

On the history for Marilyn Manson band, you said you reverted my edit, which was "Manson Sucks a lot of Cock" I just want to let you know that wasn't me. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I think you misread the revision history. The edit summary says I reverted an edit made by Special:Contributions/204.111.98.230 to your last revision. So I never suspected you of vandalizing the article. Sorry if you got that impression. I hope that clears things up. Tiderolls 19:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Good. And I appreciate your extreme effort on reverting vandilism, as I have also seen you on the Korn pages. : D --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 13:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just wanted to stop in and say thanks for all your efforts at dealing with vandalism. It is noticed and very appreciated!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word. I've seen your user name on many of my "reverts to last version by" and I'm always confident that I'm reverting to a good version. See ya 'round Tiderolls 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

You're welcome. --Abce2|Howdy! 03:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page :) Banaticus (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Besides, I think I owe you...I think you've done the same for me. I don't remember now...that's really sad. Tiderolls 03:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I owe you one

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for the reverting! --Abce2\|Howdy! 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we all owe each other..LOL. I appreciate the recognition. I don't give out nearly enough of these. I gotta change that. So many folks putting serious time an effort in. Tiderolls 03:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Recent Vandalism Reverts

If you have a chance I would appreciate it if you would occasionally let me revert some vandalism, too. ;-) --T'Shael MindMeld 04:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure...always glad to oblige an easy request. :) Tiderolls 04:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. :-) --T'Shael MindMeld 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Not at all, a pleasure. I must admit I cracked a smile at the "of" :). All the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Doniago

Doniago has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

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

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism to my user page. Any chance you could look into the recent difference of opinion I had with an anon. user (see my talk page)? They're claiming they were trying to archive, I looked and just saw removal of content...thanks again!Doniago (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not answering sooner. I think by now you have probably gotten deep into the circumstances and so any help I could offer is probably stale. I looked at the IP's edit and saw an edit summary "archive". It did seem that they were archiving...I do not know enough about archiving to know when it's been executed properly. (My own archiving is clunky and probably comedic to someone that knows what they're doing). I'm sure there are users that could give you more helpful guidance on that kind of thing.

Thanks lots for the cookies...as for the revert, you're quite welcome. As you know it was a click of a button...quite happy to do it :) Tiderolls 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. :-) --T'Shael MindMeld 05:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

...and for the barn star! :-) --T'Shael MindMeld 06:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

vandals?

What you do to deserve this--piss off some Auburn fan? Drmies (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

pfftt...auburn fans have way more imagination that that. :) Tiderolls 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, point well taken. Hey, you know my paycheck comes out of Auburn? They'll appreciate your kindness. Roll on, vandal patrol! Drmies (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I've no problem with Auburn fans....I keep a special, white-hot hatred for a particular football program, though. I shall not name it...I might realy make someone angry unintentionally...lol Tiderolls 05:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I hate FSU's football program too! I'm sure that's who you meant. Hey, I got two degrees in T-town, besides gray hair and some thirty pounds. My paycheck comes out of big Auburn, but it has to travel an hour or more by mail, so I hardly feel like an Auburn person. I read in the paper this morning that Tommy Tuberville got a new gig--doing podcasts for some sports web thing. Nick Saban was in town here yesterday, BTW. I used to live a block away from the stadium, but I guess I'm happy I don't live there anymore--it's madness these days on the UA campus come football time. Roll on, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page...several times! :) --Susan118 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Tiderolls 05:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Idea

Please have User:Very serious editor blocked. This guy is insane. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Meh...don't let it get to ya. The admins will act soon, I'm sure. Tiderolls 06:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Arrondissements in France

okay =) I'll tell you. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu97417 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right, a disambiguation would be better but i'm blanking the first 16 who present a disambuiguation (not the 17,18,19,20) and I'll do a copy past then to go faster. Can you remind me the model of desabiguiation one 1st arrondissement please ? thank you Lulu97417 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot remind you of that which I have no knowledge. If it would be helpful I can find the appropriate info, though. Tiderolls 01:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok but I don't want to use your time :) thank you Lulu97417 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Time?...il est infini. I'm looking now. Tiderolls 01:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

aahah good french :) but I've found it's {'{Disambig}'} without the ' ' :)) thanks

Very good. Disambiguation is something I need to learn so if you need help please let me know. As for the french...Le crédit appartient à BabelFish Good luck. Tiderolls 01:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sickles High School

My recent edit was both insightful and nothing but the truth. I find it shameful that it has been reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornadorex (talk • contribs) 02:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You might find this interesting. The first sentence of this policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth..." . I know I thought it was very interesting. Regards Tiderolls 02:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hodgepodge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornadorex (talk • contribs) 02:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but policy nonetheless. Tiderolls 02:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I am just blown away by your anti-vandalism efforts. keep it up! The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 22:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Purple Star

This is a little overdue ... you seem to attract a lot of malcontents; probably for all the right reasons.

		The Purple Star
		Awarded to Tide rolls, who undoubtedly suffered vandalism for doing his usual job, aggressively hunting vandals, and otherwise enforcing policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. I saw the "apology in advance" message on your user page and I think that's a very good idea (an idea I may borrow). As I get deeper into recent changes watching I've had opportunities to revert without warning and leave a message of explanation. It slows one down but we don't have to punch clocks..lol Plus, there are many HG and TW and manual patrollers to catch what gets by the single watcher. It's encouraging knowing there are conscientious folks like you in the trenches with us. Tiderolls 14:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?

I found a typo in an article and, when after I corrected it, you reverted it back and warned me about vandalism. Why did you do it?

What article? Tiderolls 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother, Tiderolls. The guy has been adding nonsense for the past 2 days. See my Talkpage, the My warning section. Yintaɳ 21:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got my vandals mixed up. Forget it. Yintaɳ 21:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's time for a break ;-) Yintaɳ 22:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You

good sir, are a quafflemint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.192.171 (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/Constructive

I was confused by the slap I received after editing list of Durham University people.

The page has only one refenced facts and it is a list, I was editing out the unreferenced names in order to remove spurious entries, otherwise you could put anything on wikipedia and it would be believed as fact by the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The references you require might be found on the article pages of the subjects. I know that the three I checked were there. If you can provide references that state your position, please do make the necessary changes. Thanks. Tiderolls 23:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit

Can I not edit my own talk page? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's my understanding of policy. Tiderolls 23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied 12:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

T.R. Smedberg Middle School

There is no need to add a deletion tag to this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reppinsactown (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not add the tag I restored the tag. It plainly states that the tag is not to be removed until the deletion process is completed. Tiderolls 04:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the mix-up there. I'm sure I can fix it. --Abce2|AccessDenied 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

One better 2

		Civility Award
		For being welcoming to new users (including me), reverting vandalism at the speed of light, and being so extraordinary at everything. --Abce2\|AccessDenied 01:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Abce2\|AccessDenied 01:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're Welcome

-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsurfer700 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting changes to Clan MacIntyre article.

Don't know what was going on there, but I'm glad you noticed it!--Tomaterols (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From the descendant of a border clan, you're welcome :) Tiderolls 23:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for vandalism revert

Hi TR- Thanks for reverting Jarlyn's vandalism to my user page. How did you notice it? Do you have some routine that alerts you when a user's page is edited by someone other than its user? Eric ^talk 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, but close. You can see how I did it here. I know most users are capable of maintaining their pages without my help, but users may not log in regularly. That's why I butted in...thanks for the positive feedback. See ya 'round Tiderolls 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

TR, no good deed goes unpunished. This same user vandalized my page again. I haven't yet learned the warning system, and don't have the time at the moment to fully wade through the boggy maze of wp template guidance. If you have a second, do you mind telling me if I picked a good approach here? Thanks, and I'll watch here. Eric ^talk 20:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I can say that your message to User:Jarlyn was certainly justified. However, I believe that simply reverting and ignoring would be your best option. To get futher along would require that an admin intercede and I'm thinking that's not likely. Due to the fact that the user is only making one or two edits weeks apart makes it difficult for the admins to establish a pattern to act upon. I agree that the user's edits seem disruptive and not aimed at helping build an encyclopedia. However, if you contact an admin and they do agree that action is necessary the user might take it personally and simply attack your page more. Run this by any admins that you know and get their feedback. I can tell you that there are many editors watching the encyclopedia at all times and they are able to catch most vandalism. That, combined with your own vigilence, will cover most incidents. I did not mean to mislead you about a "warning system". I was referring to the software that some rollbackers use to see page blankings etc. Try not to let the not-so-serious users distract you from contributing. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 23:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it--thanks for the perspective! Eric ^talk 02:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Homeslice1925

He should be up to Warning Level 4.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked his contribs and you're probably right. Maybe he'll get bored soon and move along. If not, the admins will not have trouble sorting it out. Regards Tiderolls 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

79.31.30.155

Should his other edits be considered vandalism, too? HalfShadow 17:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking now. Finding sources (or lack thereof) is taking time. Tiderolls 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I didn't want to do anything; there's a difference between blanking a page and changing numbers I know nothing about. It could be vandalism (given what he's done so far) but on the other hand... HalfShadow 17:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, believe me. I think I'm right, but I think my reversion was a flag icon change with no corresponding value changes. That's all I felt confident in reverting out of hand. If I'm wrong, well I'm toast. I've seen these kind of edits en masse before and they're aggravating. I'm trying to keep from mass reversion....what a temptation. :-\ Tiderolls 17:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And he changed more icons, so I reverted that. Man, I hope I'm not digging myself a hole. Tiderolls 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Another flag icon change resulted in my report to AIV. Now I'll see if I've done the wrong thing, I guess. Tiderolls 17:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing in reporting him. To me, there is nothing worse than subtle vandalism of the type which changes numbers, stats, facts, etc. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. I'm going to go over the IP's other edits, but I don't think I'll find grounds to revert. There may be some that are glaring enough but I don't have the in-depth references to revert the incremental changes this type of "editor" exhibits. Tiderolls 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that spot of vandalism on my page, so long since I've recieved any attacks, kinda nice to be able to update my vandalism counter, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, as always. Haven't seen you much as I've been busy. Always reassuring when there's an accomplished editor in the trenches with us. Regards Tiderolls 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, I wonder if the anon used a machine translation for this, and thank you for the compliment, although, you are far more accomplished then I. anyway, I'm getting off now, I know I can leave wikipedia in your capable hands ;p, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What's this

Ah, my apologies. That would appear to be the product of a Huggle mistake. I accidentally reverted a good version to a vandalized version. Please forgive me, Rbpolsen♦☺♦ 21:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I've done it myself so I'm in no position to judge. The edit just confused me. I left the message so that you wouldn't think I was reverting for vandalism. Thanks for the reply. See ya 'round Tiderolls 21:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello there

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and, allthough I have been on the Super Mario Wiki for some time, I need some ideas of what to put on my userpage

Can you please help?

Mametchi99 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of technical expertise. What I learned I found at the page design center. Hope that's helpful...if you have specific questions let me know, I'll try to help See ya 'round Tiderolls 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I did as well, but, I need help to get all those fancy borders and signatures

Mametchi99 (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. Can you please reply on my talk page?

Cheers,

Mametchi99 (talk)

TB

Hello, Tide rolls. You have new messages at Washburnmav's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

. . . for the revert. TN X Man 18:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looking at it again I suppose it's just three letters. No reason for me to butt in, but I saw it on HG and took a chance you wouldn't mind. Thanks for the positive feedback. See ya 'round Tiderolls 18:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

That was silly, I know. Must stop. What should I do instead? 86.130.122.235 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful about reverts at Paranormal State

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paranormal State. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Though regular editors might be concerned with the lack of sources for the IP's change, if a 3RR complaint is made, all parties would be scrutinized. It is better for you to file this at a noticeboard rather than doing yet more reverts. Also, there is nothing by you on the article's Talk page to explain your preferred description of this show. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. I see that you have posted a warning on the IP's talk so I will assume that you saw the messages I posted there. Since my position stated there is not mitigating the circumstances, I will not be reverting edits made to that article in the future. Suffice it to say, it was never my intention to engage in a content dispute. Apologies for the time and effort this may caused you or others. Thanks. Tiderolls 05:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:78.27.33.6

Well that was fun wasn't it? Was just clicking that button over and over for about a minute in Huggle until he got blocked. Thanks for the backup. AeonicOmega talk 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw you had matters in hand, but you never know when someone may log off. Plus, they seemed very determined. I was looking over their contribs trying to put some logic to the situation. zOMG...now they're doing it from another IP :-O My thanks to you as well. See ya 'round Tiderolls 07:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, someone must be really pissed off. Somehow had 4 more IPs (so far, and all reported). Just amazing. And you just found IP #5. Great.... AeonicOmega talk 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what one sees when one stays up late, I guess. I'm tempted to message Risker to get the scoop...my curiosity is killing me...lol Tiderolls 07:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

My very first! Thanks a lot, much appreciated. --NorwegianBlue^talk 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Paranormal State

Hello again Tide rolls, I noticed your reverts at Paranormal State, so I tried to find some sources to see which view point was correct, yours or the IPs, I came open with a few sources stating it is a docu-drama, so have reverted the anons latest edit and introduced a source, just letting you know incase you have an objection, hope you don't mind my butting in, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, I applaud your effort. I had done a cursory search of my own as I beleived the IP was attempting good faith editing. My position from the outset was that they were edting against concensus and trying to prove a point. Personally I think that "reality" and "television" are, practically speaking, mutually exclusive. But, that is my POV...my POV is not relevant (unless I can source it). Thanks for bringing your considerable talent to bear in this situation. I know the system can work...'tis just exasperating at times :) See ya 'round Tiderolls 10:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Stallman&action=history

User with IP 210.3.39.32has vandalized the page. --Grandscribe (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not being around to help. There are always diligent editors attendance, so no need to worry. Regards Tiderolls 23:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Warned for "cleaning" talk pages?

Why am I being warned for archiving multiple year-old material on numerous talk pages? I DID delete some originally because many of those words were mine ages ago, on a different I.P. addresses. After I settled to archiving it, your still warning me? AZ'sReincarnation (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no archiving done here, and I do not not see where you had edited that page previously. Unless you were editing under another user name. If that's the case it would be most helpful for you to include that info with your edit summary. Which in this case was blank. Regards Tiderolls 03:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Page edit

I have been editing a few pages that have been vandalized or used to inflame or instigate. I have no opinion on the issue I just have been checking the sources and finding that they have nothing to do with what is being said on the page. You should be thanking me for doing some clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.174.56 (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And you should be including edit summaries when you edit. That would aid other editors in assessing section blankings you perform of content that was cited. Regards Tiderolls 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the help rendered on my discussion page, and in the words of Captain Ramsey in the movie "Crimson Tide (film)"... "Go Bama, roll tide~!"; Cheers~! --Dave1185 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. Your "Roll Tide" salute is most appreciated. See ya 'round Tiderolls 18:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bethany College

Dear "Tide rolls"

Writing in regards to your comment about my edit to Bethany College's Wikipedia entry. Your allegation is that an edit which REMOVED a derogatory reference to one of the College's teachers was unconstructive. You also reverted the edit and re-inserted the "I hate Ms Fowler" comment.

I suggest you cease your threats. This article presented one of our staff in a negative light. Furthermore, I advise you to carefully observe changes to articles in the future and make more educated judgements which will protect Wikipedia's neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.57.199 (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, but I see nothing of what you assert in the two edits I made to that article. Regards Tiderolls 04:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting a neutrality edit

That edit was not vandalism. A couple of the sources were not reliable third party sources so the article violated NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imp23 (talk • contribs)

What edit? What article? Which sources? Tiderolls 01:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal question

This is a personal question, so if you don't feel comfortable or simply don't want to answer it, okay. But if you are willing to answer, what is your occupation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoGoWikiRangers (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how that could be important. Nothing personal...I do appreciate your polite post. Regards Tiderolls 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Risky Business revert

Wikipedia is not censored.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GoGoWikiRangers (talk • contribs)

That's not quite on point, but you are correct that film article's should not contain a "Parents' Guide" section - in fact that was the first one I have seen. IMHO the deletion of that section by GoGoWikiRangers was correct. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"wikipedia is not censored" is not a good rational for blanking a section like that, this edit summary is much better: 1, in future always give a good reason like that in edit summaries, however, the fact that the alternate ending section was also removed in the initial edit by GoGoWikiRangers is worth noting, I agree that the parent guide was unencyclopedic, but in future be careful not to remove more then you mean to, just my perception of the facts Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Once more, Spitfire, you have hit the nail on the head. My revert was motivated by removal of cited information. I do not use HG with relation to content disputes. I respect User:ukexpat's assessment of the content and would have no problem with its deletion. If GoGoWikiRangers had not made this edit (in addition to two strange edits to a redirect which I did not revert) immediately before the section blanking, the edit summary would not have appeared as disingenuous. Additionally this edit which, due to its mark up, would not have been visible to the article's casual reader was not helpful or constructive. I hope this editor realizes their potential for positive contribution...time will tell. Thanks for your input. I hope things are going well for you...always good to see you posting here. Tiderolls 00:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the, um, "colorful" additions to my user page by 24.90.28.197 (talk · contribs). :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course...you've helped me the same way. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You Suck!

I'm a Wikipedia vandalizer and I'm PURPOSELY trying to get blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colecc8951 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

hi

i very sorry it was some 1 else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.244.71 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Marriage

Tide rolls, stop reverting my edit. I made that three times and for good reason. Marriage (if it is to be defined by the liberals on Wikipedia) can exist outside of kinship. Please tell me why you think that phrase should be there and why you are so protective over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsafdsa1 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanking of content without explanation is a common tactic for vandalism. If this was not your intent, I apologize. The only interest in the article's content that I have is from the perspective of a Wikipedia reader. Looking at your contributions I see that you have not made any effort to contact other editors on the article's discussion page. There is a very indepth discussion regarding the sentence you are trying to edit. Perhaps you can direct your attention there and find out if your addition matches the consensus of the other contributors. Whatever course you choose I wish you luck, but please do not come here and tell me how to edit. Regards Tiderolls 03:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

hey man

wats wrong with edit? 76.251.211.79 (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To what edit are you referring? Tiderolls 05:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he/she is referring to this edit that you reverted. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh....that one. I claim a rotator cuff injury to avoid my duty :) Tiderolls 05:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd. 76.251.211.79 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being polite here and signing your posts, 76. Regards Tiderolls 05:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks!

Thank you for reverting Danny Davis' vandalism my user page. I didn't even realize he vandalized it again after I already reverted him once on my user page. Thanks again! I owe you. =) - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, Eugene...you've cleaned up here so many times I really wouldn't want to count. I may actually owe you. You're welcome, of course. I appreciate all the help on RC's. See ya 'round Tiderolls 05:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Cst17 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always glad to help out. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:69.124.9.173 and cats

This is apparently User:Lg16spears acting under an IP as he came behind the IP and made the category. He has already made numerous bad categories that had to be deleted and apparently is still at it. *sigh* I've rolled back all of the IPs edits. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm share your frustration. I have been cautioned lately on getting involved with content disputes so I'm trying to be a bit more cautious in my approach. Once I saw the category created I stopped undoing their edits. Thanks for taking up my slack Tiderolls 03:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm going to report him to ANI, as he is now recreating categories he'd made before that were deleted in CfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

More eyes would certainly be helpful. Good idea. Tiderolls 03:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page the other day. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Always glad to help. I appreciate the positive feedback. See ya 'round Tiderolls 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:

Heya Tiderolls, it was just missing a {{reflist}} in the references section, watch out for that next time ;). See you around, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh...I didn't look there. I was so intent on the cites themselves. Good catch...thanks for the help Tiderolls 21:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Anytime, not a problem, all the best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

hey

I love you. I want to give you a cookie but I eated it. 92.236.245.145 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Userpage

Have you ever thought of requesting protection for your userpage, so that these vandals can't keep attacking it? Until It Sleeps 04:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had it protected for short periods when it's been a non-stop party. Since I watch RC my page is gonna be a target now and then. My only concern is the work it may create for others in reverting the noise. I don't really have a preference, though...click a button and it disappears. I'm open to other perspectives on protection...I may be missing something obvious. Regards Tiderolls 04:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help me

Hi Tide rolls Can you please help me, cause that man from Switzerland deleted my links again from Jodi her wikipedia his ip is 79.223.107.63 it always begins with 79 or 76 it is constantly the same person

thank you very much

--BlackIdentity (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear of your difficulty...I am presently at work and can not give you an indepth response. I am going to read the page explaining use of external links and get back to you. Feel free to familiarize yourself with the guideline by clicking on this link. Please remember to be careful reverting the edits so as to avoid violating the three revert rule. Good to hear from you...take care Tiderolls 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the guideline for external links and there is a statement that could be problematical. In the section titled "Links normally to be avoided" there is this.."11) Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)". The pivotal concept is "recognized authority"....note that this exception has limited application. If you could provide facts that support your status as a recognized authority then your case for inclusion of the link would be strengthened. It's my assumption that the anon IP(s) are relying on this stipulation for their continued deletion. Please check with other editors whose judgement you trust...this is unfamiliar territory for me and my analysis, though well intentioned, may not cover the subject completely. I feel that you are editing in good faith and I apologize for not providing you with more solid support. The guidelines and policies are generated from a concensus and are put in place to keep the encyclpedia factual and reliable. Feel free to contact me if you feel I can be of any assistance. Take care Tiderolls 01:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the two reverts on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think you've done the same for me (after so many attacks it's difficult to keep straight). I've seen your user name on the RC page and I aprreciate the hard work you put forth. Tiderolls 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for undoing the damage to my user page.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to do it. I've seen your hard work on RC and I know how that can make one a target. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 02:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

It looks like you've been helping me and others by removing vandalism from our user pages. It is much appreciated. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for the positive feedback. Tiderolls 02:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Matty560

I warned him for you about Coronation Street. Hope you don't mind.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I hit the wrong button. I warn 98% because I'm looking for blatant vandalism. I sometimes let the odd grafitti go without a warning hoping the user was just bored...or testing....so something else and decides to move along. Thanks Tiderolls 01:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess you must be doing something right, I think you've made a friend with Matty. ;) Ajh16 (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Make a friend and he gets blocked. Just my luck Tiderolls 01:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out...

So fast I didn't even see it... [1]. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 02:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know this is not a race, but some vandalistic edits just rub me the wrong way. I'm constantly reminding myself...calm...tranquility...there's no deadline... Tiderolls 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I try to remember to get at least 1-2 hours of a break from WP on the weekends. ;) Doesn't always work though. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 02:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I admire your discipline. Rather, your attempt at discipline Tiderolls 02:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bubbles

I'm only stating the obvious. How is that vandalism? 76.247.131.189 (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

y so silent? 76.247.131.189 (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/172.163.34.68

Hi, thanks for your AIV report of this guy.

If you see someone doing that in the future, don't bother warning him, just report him to AIV straight away. If you want, make a note that he is the "infringement" vandal. Thanks for all your work with vandalfighting and your AIV reports. I don't think I've ever seen you make an incorrect one, and I've fielded a lot of reports from you.

Cheers. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen that editor (or editors) inserting "infringement" in various articles several times. This was my first experience with the insertion into the artists' names. I guess variety IS the spice of life. Thanks for the positive feedback on my reporting. I don't think you will see a false report from me...not bragging, I'm just saying my mistakes are usually pointed out before they advance into a report :) Also, thanks for the quick action at AIV....I know I tax that system with my reports...lol...but the admins haven't complained so I'll keep reporting. Seriously, any advice or criticism is welcome. See ya 'round Tiderolls 14:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Aboanity

Dear Mr(s). Tide rolls, Please don't send me scary messages. I just want my page back. Aboanity is very important to me, and I have been an Aboanitian girl for as long as I can remember. I am 11 years old, and I would apreciate it very much if you would put my Aboanity page back. From: --Aboanity33 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to get frustrated when things don't go your way. You must not let that frustration lead you to deface the user pages of other editors. That is why I reverted your edits...if you had come here after my first revert I would've explained how your edits appeared to be vandalism. I did not revert your messages on the users talk page as that's where they belong. Try to be more careful how you edit and you should not have any problems. Feel free to post any questions or concerns you have here and I will try to help. Good luck Tiderolls 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

SORRY MISSUS OR MISTER, I JUST *SNIFF* WANT MY PAGE BACK. ABOANITISM OR ABOANITY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO AN 11 YEAR OL ABOANITIAN GIRL SUCH AS MYSELF. IS VANDILISM LIKE THE GRAFFITI ON THE OUTSIDE OF MY HOUSE?--Aboanity33 (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's some information you might find helpful: [2] Tiderolls 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

UH...THANKS. BUT CAN I PLEASE JUST HAVE MY PAGE BACK? PLEEEEAAAAASE? FROM:--Aboanity33 (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your page was deleted by an administrator. I am not an administrator so I will not be able to restore your page. Your best course of action would be to follow the instruction of the admin that deleted your page. That editor will let you know why the page was deleted and how best to restore it, if restoration is possible. Good luck Tiderolls 15:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Company

It's nice to know that I'm not the only jerk around here. :) Also, thank you for the reversions to my user page. Best, TN X Man 16:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good company indeed..lol...the announcement on that page indicates a promotion for me. Moet et Chandon all 'round. Cheers Tiderolls 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in--that talk page is, apparently, the only place on the internet that mentions the name of that Christian sect. Wow! That in itself almost makes it notable. (And yes, I'll have a glass. Tide, you know there's a bar in T-Town that used to sell little bottles of Korbel, with cozies and all, on game days? And for only $2!) Drmies (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that editor may have invented that sect...just my opinion, I could easily be wrong. I don't really know if it was an editor that was too inexperienced to get their point across or if they were simply trying to create a niche in which to fit. I fear they have reached a frustration level that will prevent their contributing...for a while. It would've been interesting to see if there was really an article there. I've never been to a game in T-town...only Bama game I've seen was played locally. Scott Hunter was second string QB...so, that tells ya how long ago we're talkin' :) Tiderolls 21:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Julian Salvi

This is copyright infringement from other website. dont revert it.--Cveloe (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate that fact and have not reverted your other edits which carried summaries explaining your action. The edit I reverted had no such summary. My apologies for the revert, but any help you can provide by providing summaries is very helpful. Regards Tiderolls 01:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

:) Thanks for reverting that vandal on my talk page Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 04:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. You got him off mine as well, so I thank you. See ya 'round Tiderolls 05:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a little bit of a surprise when I saved my section to find that image on there... And you're quite welcome :) Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 05:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it was a weird edit conflict glitch. My HG has been puking all night, so I'm struggling to make sure I'm not "over reverting". I've seen several "action timed out messages" that were not true. Must be sunspots :) Tiderolls 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well these reply's are manual... I wish Gurch would hurry up and update the lite version... the full version is... crippled. It's slow as heck, and there's more bugs than ever... They just need to rewrite the whole thing, and in something other than Visual Basic .NET... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 05:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My PC is old so I have that to overcome as well. I'm just glad there are so many watching RC because I know I'm missing many edits that need to be at least looked at. Tiderolls 05:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, at least my PC is much newer... On my old, ancient tower, 8.3 onward would actually lock up on my computer. 9.1 would probably force me to reset my computer due to the massive amount of bugs and bloat in it... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 05:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I started with 9.0 so I can't compare the versions. I'm using the full version and I usually have to log out and restart every hour to 90 minutes. Not that bad, but very ineffecient. Tiderolls 05:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

You're welcome! Abce2|AccessDenied 03:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

i m sry that one of my friend came to my house, use my computer and randomly reedit some wiki pages. i m leaving this comment in hope to remove my warning since i DIDN'T reedit the pages ;( . if possible, please give me another chances, and i won't let anyone do this again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.217.53 (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith I'll take you at your word. You don't need my persmission or approval to edit Wikipedia. All that is asked is that you act responsibly. As long as no more bad edits are made from your computer, then the warning left on your page will mean nothing. If you need any help feel free to post here. Good luck Tiderolls 03:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Huggle Use

I am not sure that reverting the edit by 24.16.46.210 from the page Liberty Senior High School was clear vandalism. I don't know if you meant to revert that, or just were going over it too fast? Anyhow I thought I would bring that to your attention. SparksBoy (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, but I do think the edits were vandalism. "Bradden Timm" was added as a notable alum and then "Chrissy Hughes'" entry was changed to Bradden Timm. Then the original Bradden Timm entry was re-added. Then "Meagen Wicker" replaced Bradden Timm in the Chrissy Hughes entry....all the time the entry still referencing "Chrissy" in the text. And none of these edits had summaries. Like anyone I am capable of error...I don't think this revert was one of those times. Regards Tiderolls 05:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to give you a pointer... Try to use the message templates, instead of warning (vandalism warning should be used for blatant vandalism.) Anyways keep up with the good work. Cheers SparksBoy (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I like to avoid the bitey approach myself (I know you don't know me...I can show you many instances if you'd like). The templated message I left mentioned "unconstructive" and "testing", not vandalism. I think we're in agreement generally, so thanks for the heads up. Tiderolls 05:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on my Userpage

Thank you for reverting the Vandalism on my userpage. Twice. -- RandorXeus. 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)...lol...You're welcome. I appreciate you letting me know you didn't mind me butting in. See ya 'round Tiderolls 18:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

George Mason University

Use the talkpage if you disagree with my edits. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you've never posted there I wasn't sure you knew where it was. Please stop removing cited info from articles. This course of action will not serve you well. Regards Tiderolls 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please keep in mind that reverting a Wikipedia page more than three times in a 24-hour period would be a violation of the three revert rule (WP:3RR) and would result in a block. Also, accusing another editor of vandalism when you disagree with the editor's edits is generally considered uncivil. I suggest you use the talkpage to explain your views. 173.66.36.76 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've explained that you are removing cited information. Do not post here again. Thanks Tiderolls 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please self revert yourself ASAP or risk an outcome you might regret William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've undone my last edit per your instruction. May I ask why you have asked that the blanking of cited content be reinstated? Tiderolls 21:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because you don't want to be blocked for 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, to be honest, the edit's looked suspect to me too. I've seen you work and know you're not one to edit war. Cheers :). Soxwon (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting my user page. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tiderolls 10:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

IRC

I saw you on IRC, but you left before I had a chance to say hello. :( Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 03:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for not speaking up, but I was sure you'd be busy. For some reason that window would never work for me before. Now that it works I'll visit more often. Good hearing from ya Tiderolls 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

He goes on and on

Hi Tide Rolls How can I contact the admin to put a closed thing on the Edit of the External links cause this guy from switzerland will go on with his Vandalism edit and shame full text about me and broke links over and over again on Jodi her Wiki

Regards danielle

BlackIdentity (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I can recommend User:LessHeard vanU, User:J.delanoy and User:LadyofShalott as fair and knowledgable admins. Any of these admins will give you good advice and help you any way they can. I hope things work out for you. Please let me know how your situation progresses. Good luck Tiderolls 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot --BlackIdentity (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Tide rolls. Everyone notices your good work with fighting vandalism, so I was just wondering, why don't you get yourself rollback rights? As you probably know already, it makes fighting vandalism a lot better and someone with a record like yours deserves to be more than just a regular user. What do you say?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I plan to ask for rollback in the near future. I was granted rollback in March '09 and requested it be rescinded so that I could spend a bit of time studying policies and guidelines. I had taken some actions that prompted an unexpected reaction from editors that I respect. I'm thinking that taking some time to edit manually will help me "re-learn" how to best build an encyclopedia. I've seen and appreciated the work you do on recent changes and I'm encouraged by the fact that you find my contributions an asset. Thanks for the positive feedback. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think rollback would be a good idea for this user since he is obviously biased toward a certain ~~school~~ religion. Drmies (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it mitigate the circumstances if I confessed to the aforementioned ~~faith~~ bias in the interest of full disclosure? Tiderolls 00:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

How about I put all kidding aside and just say that I have the utmost confidence in you as an editor? Roll Tide! Drmies (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words :) Tiderolls 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Congradulations! Although I seem a little late.:)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I've never gotten one, but you earned it, especially after beating me for the third time in less than an hour. :P —Coastergeekperson 04^TM_{circa. Jul/21/09 00:19}

Reverts

All in a day's work! Happy to help. Cheers, Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)