User talk:BoomerAB/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, BoomerAB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Steven Walling (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wood finishing

You appear to have undone an edit on this page, in what looks like a Good Faith attempt to reverse vandalism. However the vandalism (which looks like a test edit anyway, not outright harm) was done over two edits. Undoing only the last one made things worse! If you're in this situation again, please look back over the history log and check it's going back to the right place - this can get tricky sometimes. It's also very important to get it right (or at least not act too hastily) as it's horribly easy to blame the wrong person, then all sorts of feathers get ruffled.

There is a tool called reversion or "rollback" which can reverse a whole sequence of edits by a user with just one click. It's not standard issue, it has to be requested, and it won't get granted unless you've some edit history behind you. However if you're interested in fixing this stuff, keep an eye out for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I certainly would be interested in the Rollback tool. --BoomerAB (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penticton

You addition of "Penticton is also host to a wide variety of LGBT lifestyle based tourism." is going to need a citation from a reliable source or else it will be removed. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds the fact to cite it, not for others to disprove it. -Royalguard11(T) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I did not add it in the first place.

But you do keep re-adding it. -Royalguard11(T) 20:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley

Hi BoomerAB, Can I ask your reasoning for removing the external link to kimberley-canada.com? We feel it is a valid addition to the site and is relevant to the subject but I am interested in knowing your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainstumble (talk • contribs) 06:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User pages vs. user talk pages

I noticed you left a message on the page User:Mountainstumble. While welcoming new Wikipedians is always nice, you unfortunately put your message on the wrong page. Instead of leaving messages on the user page, which is where each user writes about him/herself, you should have written them on the user's talk page instead, which is for feedback and communication with the user. --Ericdn (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eric!

Tommyfirefly

Please read the CSD criteria, particularly WP:NONSENSE; this page is not a valid "db-nonsense" target. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagging

Please be careful when tagging new articles for speedy deletion... specifically your most recent edit to Burn Cruising, which you tagged with {{db-nonsense}}... if you read WP:NONSENSE, you will see that this article does not qualify... I would also recommend that you check up on the rest of the criteria listed at WP:CSD to ensure that you are tagging new articles properly... if you need any help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page... happy editing... - Adolphus (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Test Track, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McDoob, I think there was an error somewhere as I didn't make that change. It may have happened using Friendly. Sorry about that. --BoomerAB (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi BoomerAB, I also added a vandalism warning to your page for reverting someone's reverting of vandalism until I noticed that your history has been in fighting against vandalism. That having been said you need to be really careful with scripts like friendly. There is a warning at the top of WP:FRIENDLY: "Be advised that even when using these scripts, you take full responsibility for any action done using them. You must understand the Wikipedia policies and use this tool within that policy, or risk being blocked for its misuse.". Keep up the great work in fighting against vandalism. We all make mistakes, but make sure to not be so trigger-happy with the scripts. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rollback request

Hello BoomerAB, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism/spam, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback.

I also noticed the note above about avoiding rapid reverts, and making sure you know what you're reverting. The same is for this tool. Good luck. Acalamari 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Acalamari. I will ensure I know what I am reverting before hitting the 'button' Cheers. --BoomerAB (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome! Acalamari 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ford

Hi. Please be careful when reverting. Your reversion here actually re-introduced some vandalism I deleted. I will also criticize myself as I inappropriately tagged it as vandalism, which it wasn't, so we're both at fault here :-) -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)}^{• I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here!} 20:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that one! Cheers. --BoomerAB (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watership Down

Making threats is not conducive to a constructive dialogue. All we will wind up doing is reporting each other, no one wants that. Do make threats (it all is a reportable offence). I changed the heading of the section back to appease NJGW. NJGW is reverted an edit I made without good reason. Please examine the history before making accusations and threats. Rapparee71 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way none of my edits were an attempt to "vandalise" the article. So, blocking my account on that account would be an example of abusing admin powers. 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna

The user The Bookkeeper remove the billboard sources. Vítor & Rihanna (msg) 22:33 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		Gahhhh! You beat me! Abce2 (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Abce2[reply]

Hehe. Thanks! --BoomerAB (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Milk

Hi BoomerAB. Your recent removal of my changes (labeled as unconstructive), was to revert changes due to vandalism. Perhaps I was not clear enough in the summary, but the offending lines can be easily seen in the history. Idiotmeat (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Idiotmeat. I have reverted back to your version. Welcome to Wikipedia!

Why did you revert my edit to Amniotic sac?

Why did you revert my edit to Amniotic sac? 75.45.96.204 (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through your talk page here, it appears you simply have an itchy trigger finger. Looking at your edit history, it looks like you're doing good work, but you've been warned repeatedly, since this account was created: BE MORE CAREFUL. 75.45.96.204 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. This was not a result of an itchy trigger finger. If you are going to change "Complying with popular belief, amniotic fluid is not inedible" to "it is edible" you need to prove this is indeed a fact. --BoomerAB (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The assertion was uncited to begin with! I was cleaning up an unwieldy sentence. Stop reverting me unless you have a decent reason. 75.45.96.204 (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Mayer and Edie Britt editing war

We have a problem. We are in an editing war with the pages Susan Mayer and Edie Britt. Will you please find a way to resolve this before it gets any worse than it already is? Let me know what you think. This is very important. Thank you very much. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, could you explain what edit war you are referring to? Thanks.
- If this is in regards to the above remark from AdamDeenHall, I have not been involved in this edit war. --BoomerAB (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverting edits by user:82.39.152.89 to Edie Britt. Reverts are still edits as far as 3RR applies. Now I have no opinion here (I've never owned a TV, I've never seen the show) but this looks like it's a content dispute, not sheer unambiguous vandalism, so there's no lessening of 3RR on reversion. Nor is an editor who persistently adds the same content in breach of 3RR any excuse for you to revert it equally doggedly. If it's that bad, there will be other people doing the reverts too. If the additions are so far beyond 3RR, they'll attract a block. If the addition is libellous (etc.) then we can think abut relaxing 3RR as a fire-fighting measure.

Sort it out through Talk:. Remember that bytes are cheap and you can probably include both points of view without either side needing to give much ground. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiiliam Ellison

So BoomerAB, please tell me how my edit of William Ellison is "unconstructive." If you read the source that was cited in the original version, you would clearly see that William Ellison was not the largest slaveowner in South Carolina; he was the largest NEGRO slave owner in South Carolina. If the omission was unintentional, another fine example of the declining ability of the modern person to understand what they read. If intnetional, the omission is an obvious and sad attempt to pin slavery on African-Americans and not on racist southern whites, who owned many many more slaves that Ellison, where the blame for slavery belongs. If you want to check me out on this, look at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ajac/biggest16.htm which clearly explains who the largest slaveowners were, and no where is William Ellison even close to these guys. I am merely cleaning up the misleading and sloppy work on this page so future readers won't look stupid when they cite the outlandish claim asserted by lurking wikipedia authors and making sure the record on this issue is accurate. 98.215.174.164 (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Finis[reply]