User talk:Houston Archer Clark
Hello. Thank you for your advice. Any help is much appreciated.
Recent reversion of edit to 1972 San Francisco 49ers season article
[edit]Hello, Houston Archer Clark.
You reverted my change to the article about the 1972 San Francisco 49ers season with a note that it was test/vandalism. I'm curious about what your objection to the changes were, and why the "test/vandalism" note.
Thanks. – RHodnett (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
[edit]Hello, this is User: Houston Archer Clark. You reached out to me regarding me reverting one of your edits. If this edit was in good faith, I apologize. Your edit showed up on wikiloop doublecheck as having a high probability of being in bad faith. I saw that you deleted a lot of text so I assumed that the edit was in bad faith. Looking at your talk page, it seems you are a good editor and likely had good reason for deleting text. Again I apologize. Feel free to restore your edits. I am brand new at Wikipedia and I don't have much experience yet with how all this works but I do want to fight vandalism. Houston Archer Clark (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Houston Archer Clark
Hello, Houston Archer Clark.
(I copied your reply above from my talk page so that this thread would be in one place.)
Definitely no need to apologize. And I don't think I actually deleted any text in the article. But I did split the introductory paragraph into two: the first two sentences went into one paragraph, and the rest, which had more detailed info about what happened during the season (starting QB injured, backup QB does well, team makes playoffs, then blows a 15-point lead in the 4th quarter of the first playoff game) seemed like it belonged in its own paragraph. I did make a few changes in that new paragraph.
Wikipedia's text-compare program is pretty good in most situations, but in this case, because I split the introductory paragraph into two and also made some changes in what was now the new paragraph, when you compare the two revisions, the text-compare program just throws its hands up in despair and indicates that all of the text that was placed in its own paragraph was deleted from the old revision, and that the new paragraph is completely new text. If the line breaks hadn't been inserted to split the paragraph, the text-compare program would have done a much better job at pinpointing what the actual differences were.
I'd never heard of the automated wikiloop doublecheck process before a couple of days ago. It's a little disheartening to see an automated process being kind of trigger-happy in characterizing edits as probable vandalism. Especially when the text-compare program is indicating that some edits are more sweeping in scale than they really are.
Anyway, thanks for responding (and for undoing the reversion). – RHodnett (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
[edit]
Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that in this edit to Frodo Baggins, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ... discospinster talk 22:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ... discospinster talk 23:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)