User talk:Roastytoast/Vandalism Complaints

Before you complain, judge yourself. See if you did the right thing.

When complaining please make it a new section (two equal signs before and after the heading). If this is not done, complaints may not be responded to or reviewed.

vandalism

I have just received a message from your online alias, stating that I have vandalised a wikipedia page. As I have not even edited any wikipedia pages, please can you explain how I may have vandalised one? Can you refer, in your reply, to the article, the vandalism caused within the article and the times and dates of the alleged vandalism. Many thanks.

P.S - since I don't actually know how to send messages on wikipedia, I have edited this discussion page instead. I hope this is in accordance with whatever rules may cover this kind of activity and in the case of any unintentional rule breaking I am sincerely apologetic.

vandalism

Resolved

See User_talk:Roastytoast#Removed_content —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.37.207 (talk) 20:31, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Not only did I personally not vandalize anything (shared IP address), but I'd like to get the stupid bright orange box off the top of the wikipedia pages I see. Who can do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.255.10 (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

unfair use of VP against third user

I have just discovered a reversion made by Roastytoast. The documentation of this edit is as follows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ship_of_Fools&diff=next&oldid=154212609 Revision as of 17:55, 28 August 2007 (edit) (undo) Roastytoast (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted 2 edits by 201.161.41.58 (talk) to last revision (153933205) by 121.45.199.136 using VP)

I would like to object to the use of VP to perform the reversion. (I am not user who has been reverted.) The set of edits you reverted consisted merely of three or four internal links. The internal links were reasonable. Therefore, the resort to Vandalproof in such a situation seems unconscionable.

In view of my unease, I undertook a short investigation. A random examination of the user's history shows that they have copiously contributed spelling corrections -- the bulk of them accurate -- and internal links. My random survey of the edits by 201.161.41.58 revealed no edits that could be considered vulgar, incoherent, spurious, grossly incorrect, or disruptive. Indeed, all I saw were spelling corrections and internal links.

I think it is relevant that within the week prior to the edits in question, extensive controversial edits *were* made to the article in question. However, none of them were made by 201.161.41.58 and furthermore they were of a totally different character to 201.161.41.58's body of edits, i.e., they were fresh sentences.

Therefore, Roastytoast, I urge you to rescind your action against user 201.161.41.58.

(I think it is may also be relevant to advise of the following: (1) the controversial edits were reverted twice by the same user and were rereverted each time by the contributor; (2) the edits are indeed full of broken English and I agree with other previous criticism of them, and therefore, I am about to revert them myself; (3) until this evening, I hadn't even had any knowledge of the existence of this article.) Hurmata 05:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)