User talk:SuperFightingRobotMegaMan1987

May 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Rob Paulsen has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Rob Paulsen was changed by F-This1992 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85205 on 2017-05-24T18:03:41+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Am I missing something? It looked as though this user was reverting the vandalism. Good hand, bad hand? Tiderolls 18:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that Oshwah must have misinterpreted the message on the article talk page as an admission that F-This1992 was the one making the hoax edits. F-This1992 does seem to be an inappropriate username, though. —DoRD (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought re: the user name, @DoRD:. I wanted to approach that situation at the conclusion of the present one. Tiderolls 20:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruh roah! From what I'm reading above, it sounds like I dun goof'd and misread some edits. I'll take another look shortly... in the meantime, please feel free to modify or remove this block at any time and without my input. I know enough that if I'm told that I screwed something up, chances are... they're probably right :-). I also owe this user my sincere apologies for the mistake on my part... I'm very sorry. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, @Oshwah:. I'm still attempting to resolve the good hand, bad hand dilemma to my satisfaction (pinging @Yamla: as well). If someone acts before me, so be it. Tiderolls 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The good-hand/bad-hand is still unresolved, but there's enough question here that I'm going to be bold and lift the block. If either of you look into this in more detail and decide this is the wrong course of action, the appropriate response would be to replace the block without consulting me. --Yamla (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information

When reverting a series of disruptive edits, as you were at Rob Paulsen, it's usually better to simply restore the last good version of the revision history. Besides saving time, employing that method would ensure that none of the disruptive edits are overlooked. Regards Tiderolls 18:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I was not taking part in any vandalism I was trying to prevent vandalism. Someone is creating a death hoax with Rob Paulsen's page and I was simply removing the false information. I apologize if I may have went against the guidelines I'm new so I'm still understanding the system.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SuperFightingRobotMegaMan1987 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was preventing actual vandalism. F-This1992 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After looking into this block, we think it was probably a mistake. As such, I've lifted the block. Obviously, if more information comes to light that shows this was a mistake, someone may replace your block. But to me, it looks like this block was placed in error and you were legitimately trying to revert vandalism. Obviously, that's something we strongly encourage here and think highly of people fighting to clean up after vandals! Yamla (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: Looking at the edits, it appears as though this user was reverting uncited and false claims. It's... not clear to me that you blocked the right person here, but I may be missing something. For example, this could be a WP:GOODHAND. Oshwah, care to take a second look? --Yamla (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I think I meant to block the other person, not this person. SuperFightingRobotMegaMan1987 - I owe you an apology. That was my bad, and I appreciate you for volunteering your time to revert vandalism. It's a messy area to work in, and it's certainly a thankless job. My talk page is always open to you if you need anything. Best regards and happy editing -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: No worries, I'm just glad no false information was distributed. You were doing your job and I respect that. It shows how passionate you are with what you do. Thank you for being considerate and for all your help. Take it easy. --SuperFightingRobotMegaMan1987 (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for lifting the block. The username yeah I can see how it caused some confusuion. Can I change it or would I have to make a new account?

You are free simply to create a new account, so long as you also stop using this one (see WP:SOCK for why this is important). Alternatively, you may request a change in your username by following the directions at WP:RENAME. --Yamla (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]