User talk:TimonyCrickets/Archive 1

Tools I use

Hi TimonyCrickets! I use Huggle to revert vandalism very quickly here on Wikipedia. It reverts the edits to the page and places whatever warning you choose on their user talk page all at once with only one button press. It also displays the average edits per minute and reverts per minute. I suggest setting it to look at anonymous edits only so you don't get overwhelmed. That displays edits made by IP addresses as well as newly-registered users, and that covers most vandalizers. The pages I linked above have the Huggle user manual, but it's very easy to use. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 03:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Riconosciuto revert

Hi, are you an admin? I notice that you have reverted something on michael riconosciuto that you have called vandalism. I would like to know how you can to the conculsion that this was vandalism when it is very obvious that all the previous entries were vandalism and the entry that you reverted was to correct that previous vandalism. You can see that the user that had been banned had multiple sockpuppets that had messed up the page previously. I request that you change change the revert you did back to correct this or this will be reported to wikipedia. Thanks Desertfae (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Desertfae. No I am not an admin however the edits which I reverted on Michael Riconosciuto where inappropriate according to Wikipedia Guidelines. You can see what was added here and here. I am by no means saying that the article was or was not vandalized by another user or their sock puppets. But it is certainly not acceptable to place a users personal opinion about the validity of an article into a header inside the actual article itself. Please take these sorts of comments into the talk page for this article. TimonyCrickets (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia clearly has a very strong position about bios on living people. A newcomer to this page should not have to visit the talk page to learn that a banned sockpuppet who accuses the living subject of promoting fiction in the opening paragraph has damaged the entire page, previous reverts included accusations of murder so I suggest you slow down and pay attention to what you are editing and who you are accusing of vandalism. I have no problems reporting this to an admin, have done so before and been fairly treated. If you have a shred of interest in the integrity of wikipedia, violation of a living person bio is as serious matter, this should be your prime concern.

I cannot blieve you think this a matter for discussion, that is absurd

You signed up 15 days ago, the day before these sockpuppets were banned, and you use a program to troll editors, if this is your idea of protecting wikipedia from vandalism, you need to rethink your approach and if you accuse me of vandalism again I will put the matter before admin. If you think my actions are inappropriate, I suggest you report me.!~~winksatfriend

Same Battle

We seem to be fighting the same battle on Salt pan .. looks ok now though ... good work, I was in history getting Cluebot ver. on last revert. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 22:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too! At first I couldn't tell why you reverted me but then history showed I reverted right into another vandals post. I should have checked a bit closer. At least we're fighting the good fight together ;) TimonyCrickets (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Internet Brands

Could you please revert Internet Brands back to the March 5th revision? All of today's editing has been vandalism due to Internet Brands switching over the Audiworld forums to vBulletin from their old software. It may be beneficial to make the page protected until the current excitement subsides. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.140.215 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been through all of the edits for today and certainly some have been vandalism. However, not all of them seem to fit aa vandalism and some seem to even be beneficial, or at the very least should not be undone by the rules of wikipedia. If you feel the page is being unfairly edited please feel free to be bold and edit it to be correct! Just make sure your verify your work.TimonyCrickets (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Irnotvandel (talk) 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}}!

Re: A bit of Third Party help

I'm rather short on time at the moment, but I'll be sure to investigate in the morning. Apologies for the delay. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears your actions were indeed reasonable. While his intent may have not been to vandalize, such edits are inappropriate. I'll keep an eye on it, and feel free to let me know if you need any more help. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I'm happy to help. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could leave a note on the editor's talk page using {{Drmmt}}. However, in this case, you could simply revert the article back to its non-spammy version. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)