User talk:68.248.131.61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Thank you for experimenting with the page Desi Arnaz on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've crossed this warning out, please see the discussion on both this talk page and the warning user's talk page for the reasons why. 68.248.131.61 00:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: VP2 Revertion

I set the bot to remove that line, not re-place it. It seems your edit was made on-top while I was reviewing. It's not an error I could have prevented. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That other reversion did not have an edit summary to justify changing that word. Dominance seemed an odd word to put in its place... --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Without an edit summary, it's more difficult to judge which edits are genuine and which are just compromising article itegrity. With the applications I am using, all edits on Wikipedia are chucked up infront of numerous experienced editors, to judge whether the edit was genuine or vandalism. Vandalism comes in many forms, from removing a . to blanking an entire article.
If you are an experienced editor, please login with a named account - it means I for one won't be reviewing your edits (I currently am set to review anonymous edits only) and two, it gives me and others the oppertunity to see how much experience you have with editing. I've been vandal-busting for several months now - and that edit was a common 'unneeded' or 'unexplained' edit. As I've said, if they had justified changing a specific word in the article in the edit summary, I would have been less inclined to revert it. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to be told how to revert vandalism though - I was justified in reverting that edit. As with most vandalism patrollers, I rely on edit summaries occasionally to help indicate the nature of an edit. In that case, I couldn't tell what the edit was about, the replacement word didn't seem to fit in comparison to the previous, and no edit summary to help indicate either. I could have left it, tagged it 'not vandalism' - but then again I deemed the edit unnecessary. Also, people who revert vandalism are not limited to reverting blatant vandalism - random edits and out-of-place edits can well be reverted aswell. I'm done here... --Sagaciousuk (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to point out - you may feel it's 'unjust', however as you claim, this isn't your actual IP or account - so what does it matter anyway... --Sagaciousuk (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/8/2E/User_talk%7E68.248.131.61.html"