User talk:Sagaciousuk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am also involved in the newest fight against spam! Come join us! --Sagaciousuk (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC) |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
[edit] Useful links
[edit] AMPS / TACS Factually inaccurate
The AMPS page is factually incorrect. Please correct the information or take it down before you accuse someone of vandalism.
This attitude is indicative of wikipedophiles and i find it irritating. Wikipedia will never be a serious reference source while you allow spurious information to take precedence over facts 81.86.48.46 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Commendation
You, truly, are a very important contributor to wikipedia. That edit was indeed vandalism meant to test the quickness of the wikipedians. You have passed with flying colors. The wikipedian response was astounding. Again, a congratulations are in order for you and all members of the wikipedia vandalism reverters. If any more vandalism occurs on this IP address (it is a public computer), please simply block it from any more edits, if at all possible. 72.159.154.3 18:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
For your help at CFD. I wouldn't have been able to do those redirect cats manually. --Kbdank71 20:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please pay attention
What I removed was non-sense that had nothing to do with the section of the article. Please read what you are reverting. 68.248.131.61 23:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't excuse the mistake be it your fault or not. I now have a vandalism warning on my talk page, that is false. I also do not understand what you mean. If you are using a bot to remove the same thing I did, why would you warn me for vandalism? 68.248.131.61 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also your revert here is not vandalism either... 68.248.131.61 23:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- So you need an edit summary to make a change? I'm far from a newbie to the site, and I know the rules. You do not need an edit summary to change something in the article. That is wholly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Also as noted when I reverted your rollback on Zbigniew Brzezinski, rollback should only be used for vandalism, not because you found the replacement word to be odd. 68.248.131.61 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand why you reverted, my point is that it was erroneous, since you are an experienced editor you should know to look and understand what you are reverting, not just reverting because of a lack of an edit summary, or because I or someone else is editing under an ip address instead of an user name. I am editing from my ip because I do not wish to be logged in, I do not wish to use my extra tools. I simply wish to read and correct minor mistakes without the distractions of logging in. All I'm asking is that you more carefully review the reverts you are about to make, surely that is nothing too extreme to ask for. 68.248.131.61 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Be "done" then, still all I'm asking is that you review what you are about to revert more carefully. My removal to the Desi Arnaz article was not vandalism, it was removing non-sense from the article. So to cite me a warning for vandalism is just wrong. You have yet to apologize for your mistake be it your fault or not. And I still have that false warning on my talk page. I find this offensive and also an injustice to my editing. But you go ahead an be "done" discussing this with me. You are an asset to Wikipedia good sir... 68.248.131.61 00:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I suggest you stop putting your focus on my not being logged in, that has nothing to do with my ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. I can edit under damn near any name I want as long as it is conforms to the WP:USERNAME policy. Also under any ip I want as long as it is not an open or zombie proxy, etc. I really think you should be focusing on the point I have raised, just be more careful of what you are going to revert. Why is that so hard to do? No matter you are the "logged" in user, so I'm a second class editor, so do what you want. I too am done with this issue. 68.248.131.61 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Be "done" then, still all I'm asking is that you review what you are about to revert more carefully. My removal to the Desi Arnaz article was not vandalism, it was removing non-sense from the article. So to cite me a warning for vandalism is just wrong. You have yet to apologize for your mistake be it your fault or not. And I still have that false warning on my talk page. I find this offensive and also an injustice to my editing. But you go ahead an be "done" discussing this with me. You are an asset to Wikipedia good sir... 68.248.131.61 00:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- I understand why you reverted, my point is that it was erroneous, since you are an experienced editor you should know to look and understand what you are reverting, not just reverting because of a lack of an edit summary, or because I or someone else is editing under an ip address instead of an user name. I am editing from my ip because I do not wish to be logged in, I do not wish to use my extra tools. I simply wish to read and correct minor mistakes without the distractions of logging in. All I'm asking is that you more carefully review the reverts you are about to make, surely that is nothing too extreme to ask for. 68.248.131.61 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- So you need an edit summary to make a change? I'm far from a newbie to the site, and I know the rules. You do not need an edit summary to change something in the article. That is wholly against the spirit of Wikipedia. Also as noted when I reverted your rollback on Zbigniew Brzezinski, rollback should only be used for vandalism, not because you found the replacement word to be odd. 68.248.131.61 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also your revert here is not vandalism either... 68.248.131.61 23:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please consider also warning vandals
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [1]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not a problem. I just find it easier to close them down, particularly the IP vandals, if they have been warned. Best, Kukini 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Help and ideas needed
Hi,
Sorry you've been spammed, but I hope you'll find for a good reason. I've know you are active around the recent changes arena (normally having beaten me to a revert), and I'm currently looking for help with a new project. I would like to harmonise all the warnings and templates we issue, with a goal of creating a standard look, format and content to the messages. Even if you use VP, VS or any of the other vandal tools out there, I still feel this is worthwhile. Please visit here for further information, and leave me a message if you're interested, or tell me to get lost ;) if you haven't the time. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Doh!, I'd spent ages looking to see if there was a guide or policy, but oh well. I've left a message but looks like my pages were a waste of time, if they're already looking after that. Thanks for the heads up from a Narfork lad. Khukri (talk . contribs) 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] user degrees
Hey there. Did you run into a problem with the category:Wikipedians by degree list, or are you continuing to do that?--Mike Selinker 11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I was just making sure there wasn't a technical problem you needed help with.--Mike Selinker 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- All done except for some transfers from the big five: BS, BSc, MA, MS, and category:Wikipedians with Ph.D. degrees. If your bot has time to hit those five, great. If not, I'll take care of it sometime later.--Mike Selinker 20:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Anaraug! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] We are looking for you...
Yep, we are looking for you! I hope you can resolve your internet problems soon! (I am sorry for not comming sooner, I just figured that you would come on in a few hours...) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] yipe! stop!
I screwed up. I put the WikiProject folks in as "participants" when they should be members. Let me get the rest right and then start again. Sorry sorry sorry sorry.--Mike Selinker 23:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- No. What I closed it as was, "hippocratic rename (leave group 1 alone, move "members" in group 2, lowercase "Members" in group 3)". So all of these categories that made it to the rename page (that is, groups 2 and 3) should have "members" rather than "participants." Totally my fault.--Mike Selinker 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- All fixed. You can start again now.--Mike Selinker 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal Proof Help
THanks for the vandal proof help! You were very nice and went above and beyond what I was expecting. Here is a shiny award.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
I, Chrislk02, give you this random acts of kindness barnstar for the great "customer service" I got while trying to figure out my VP2 when all along it was my own idioticness! Keep up the great work. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |