User:Whisky drinker/FalsePos

PLEASE USE THIS PAGE TO REPORT ERRORS IN MY REVERTS. PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY REVERT WITH AN EDIT SUMMARY ENDING IN "(GLOO)" WAS MADE WITH A SEMI-AUTOMATED PROGRAM, SO I LIKELY HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU ARE OR WHAT THE EDIT WAS, BUT I AM NOT A BOT. IF THE REVERT WAS CLEARLY A MISTAKE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RE-DO YOUR CHANGE. THANK YOU. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock

==On Byron Nelson High School I added a link to a local newspaper article about the school because it has been in the national news this week and you claim I am vandalizing the site. This is ridiculous. The article in the paper was just a report on a controversy at the school. Why do you feel the need to censor that? Is it really warranted to even have a Wikipedia entry on an individual school? If that school is in the national news, is it really appropriate to censor out a link to the local newspaper about the controversy? How is the fact that the school has its own Pizza Hut and Subway worthy of being in Wikipedia, but we must censor the fact that the school has been in the national news???? I don't see how this makes any sense whatsoever.

On List of The Closer Characters

Revert in question is: Reference to Dr. Morales's sexual orientation is confirmed on the actor's Wikipedia entry. [1]

On Ezra Koenig

You twice reverted my suggestion to change "Spike Lee movies" to "Spike Lee joints. Seeing as this is the proper term used by Mr. Lee to describe his artistic endeavours, I find it strange that you will not allow this to stand. The only possible reason for this that I can imagine is that you respect only mainstream, proper, 'white' English. While 'joint' might not be an appropriate description for, say, a Woody Allen or Jean-Luc Godard film, I find it offensive that the term cannot be applied to Mr. Lee's works.

On Jerry Seinfeld (character)

Revert in question: [2]. No doubt the article needs a cleanup, but insofar as it's already built in this bulleted list style, these additions were constructive/good faith. –xeno^talk 19:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uniconography

Revert in question is: [3]. The Bot has repeatedly deleted as vandalism the change of the name of the previous album from God Don't Make No Trash to God Don't Make No Trash -or- Up Your Ass With Broken Glass. The latter is the correct album title, and is also the title of the article concerning that album, so is not an orphaned link - but has presumably been deleted on the grounds that 'up your ass with broken glass' does sound like vandalism. I have now managed to put this as the page to be linked to by the link God Don't Make No Trash, but it might be worth seeing if your bot can avoid this kind of thing wherever an edit referencing a title or using a quotation includes, of necessity, a profanity: an obvious example may be if it makes a link work where one didn't before: I don't really know bots, so I'm uncertain as to how practical that'd be. Thanks, Thom. user:thedisillusionedyouth user talk:thedisillusionedyouth 23:34 31 July 2010

Fair enough: I agree it looks like vandalism, and sorry for assuming you're a bot - everyone else on the page mentioned bots and you spoke of the semi-automated program, so I assumed that was it. Sorry for the confusion. user:thedisillusionedyouth user talk:thedisillusionedyouth 23:41 31 July 2010

David Crawford

Hi HJ, on David Crawford (footballer) it looks like you reverted the referencing of a uBLP... Ϣere SpielChequers 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Jason Knirck

Please remove the whole page. My students keep posting incorrect information on it to be funny, and having it there is damaging to me professionally. I have attempted to remove the incorrect information multiple times and it keeps reverting back. Remove the page entirely, please.

On the article Bhurshut

A small part is from website http://www.mandirnet.org/toi/bengal/h11.htm given by editor Ragib & not copyrighted which itself sourced from many references and any editor can see opening the link. 117.254.249.211 (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the website explicitly releases the content under GFDL or CC attrib/attrib-sharealike, "no copyright claimed" is not a valid excuse for copying content from there. Your efforts would be better spent in rewriting the content. --Ragib (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a vandal!

I created the article Meniscus Film Festival because I found an erroneous link to it on another page (linking to Meniscus: the liquid surface-tension phenomenon). Having an interest in British cinema and wanting to improve Wikipedia I took it upon myself to create a stub about the festival for the benefit of other users.
I am not a vandal, I have wholly honourable motives. I may be new to contributing and still learning though - e.g. creating a page, finding the title is slightly wrong (syntax, capitalisation etc) and then requesting a delete before starting a new page with the correct title (Is there an easier way of changing a title?).
Anyway, if you really deem it necessary to tag such articles for speedy deletion then go ahead. I will have wasted precious time and effort researching and compiling an entry, however small and basic it is now, that may be of use to many people and will no doubt grow in time. It's actions like that which discourage people from growing as editors and making valid and honest contributions in the future. Selseywill (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward K. Beale: undelete

(third request to resurrect the page 'code' - please post it to my talk page so I can enhance the article offline. Thank you!) I spent a goodly amount of time researching this person and would like to at least copy the code into a sandbox somewhere before it is gone for good. Could you please undelete or at least post the article text verbatim (meaning, with all the sub- code, reference tag information, etc)? That would save me and the other authors a whole lot of rework and send an encouraging message for future work. Thank you. Rezonate (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Raffles Institution (Secondary)

some edits on this article by another person with IP 218.186.19.236 have been unconstructive. however I share this IP and I had made some constructive edits to the article after the vandal did. hope you keep in mind the edited content before blindly reverting just because it's from the same author, especially if it's an IP address.

Thanks, 218.186.19.236 (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best answer to that is to create your own account at Wikipedia, then you will be dissociated from any vandal using the same IP. -- Alarics (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Anderson

Why was this edit reverted? You deleted it so quickly you could not have possibly have had time to check whether it was true (which it was). Very disappointing.