User talk:KGasso/Archives/2010/Q4

WTF??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Please do not revert my changes. They are correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suberub (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for information on establishing verifiability. -KGasso (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. You're just blatantly vandalizing other pages now. -KGasso (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Message from User:Martin Saints

Hey This is Roberta Murgo's personal request. She would like to have this content completely removed. Thank you. Send me instructions on how to proceed to get it done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Saints (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like User:Finlay McWalter has already responded regarding this on your talk page; if you have any questions, please let me know. :) -KGasso (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Help me

You put me down as vandalism on a page I created. Cleverperson12 has written something offensive and I keep trying to change it back but now u won't let me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPodguy360 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Thanks! -KGasso (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Final Warning

I ve put on a final warning for vandalism. I admit the first thing was but the second and third weren't can you delete them —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPodguy360 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it might be best for you to remove those yourself (which is the "normal" way to acknowledge them). Just note in the edit history when removing them. Something like "removing warnings, discussed with sender" or something should be fine. :) Thanks! -KGasso (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I added the warnings. I looked more closely a while ago, and realised that the latter warnings were for edits that were attempting to fix problems. I'm happy for the warnings to be removed :-) TFOWR 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) -KGasso (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Userpage Shield
		For reverting vandalism to my User Talk page. Grim23★ 14:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Message from User:68.203.231.180

Why did you say i was vandalizing i tried posting my note of a man killed in a sweatshop. But you reported it as being unconstructive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.231.180 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Please consider self-reverting my edit, since the discussions on the Talk page proves that your edit summary is incorrect. You are now editwarring this change without consensus, and without addressing discussion or suggestions in Talk. That violates Wikipedia policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.231.180 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to this edit. You may want to read Wikipedia:No original research regarding how to properly cite this information as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style with regards to how it should be written to fit in to the article properly. I've removed the notice I put on your usertalk page as upon looking more closely, I feel you did have good intentions with regards to adding this. Thanks. :) -KGasso (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

hey

for how much time will i be blocked from editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.171.215 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

That's generally up to the admin that handles the blocking. However, I see that you were originally trying to add information to an article, which is where this all appears to have started. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive edits that help improve the quality and accuracy of articles, just please be careful that you don't remove information that's already there. :) If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! -KGasso (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, KGasso, for all you do on Wikipedia—especially keeping my personal pages free of vandalism. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No prob, and likewise, thanks for all that you do here as well. :) -KGasso (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits using STiki

Hey KGasso, I just happened to notice that on some of the vandalism you're reverting using STiki you're not always reverting all the edits done by that particular vandal (see this diff for an example of where the IP made four bad edits but you only reverted one). I've never used STiki so I don't know if it's a problem with that tool or what but I thought you might like to know that something isn't working correctly. I see that your edits using Twinkle and Huggle revert back all the way so I think it's just an issue with STiki. SQGibbon (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just started toying with it a bit, as it seems to use an algorithm that finds vandalism Huggle doesn't find "suspicious" and therefore doesn't bring to the top of the queue. However, you are correct -- it does appear to not be rolling back sequential edits by the same user -- which is what I'm used to with Huggle/Twinkle. I'll report it to the devs. Many thanks for the heads up. :) -KGasso (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again

Thanks again for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page. Here's a cookie.

Wayne Olajuwon has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And thank you... for the cookie, your endless vandalism cleanup, and for fixing my broken header on my talk page that I missed! :D -KGasso (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! :) Wayne Olajuwon chat 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

From Alan Spencer

(message removed) Alan Spencer (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have misread the edit history and attributed someone else's changes to me. It's particularly easy to do in this case, as an administrator has redacted some of the information in the edit history (this was done as the edit history itself contained libelous information due to Page-move Vandalism). Here are the three changes I made, detailed and in chronological order:

1. 14:04, 12 October 2010 KGasso m (5,990 bytes) (Reverted edits by 91.22.201.204 (talk) to last revision by 98.201.92.218 (HG)) -- Reverted a single vandalism edit to the page; unfortunately this reverted back to another version that was vandalized by a different editor.
2. 14:06, 12 October 2010 KGasso (5,911 bytes) (Reverted 4 edits by Kgasso, 91.22.201.204, 98.201.92.218 and Senseagent223 to last revision by RjwilmsiBot (HG)) -- Searched back through page history and reverted the vandal edits by the 3 editors listed.
3. 14:06, 12 October 2010 KGasso m (5,911 bytes) (edit summary removed) -- Moved the article back to the original page name, as it was also the victim of Page-move Vandalism

I believe the changes you're referring to were made by another editor, 85.197.239.222 (talk) -- you may wish to talk with them about this. Thanks! -KGasso (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right, and there were some changes made on other pages attributed to me so I suppose there was some hacking done. My apologies. Alan Spencer (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)