User talk:Rror

Ralph Osterhout

Hello Rror. Since November the Ralph Osterhout article has had 11 credible references added and all of the "advertisement" like wording has been removed. In addition more biographical sections have been added. I am requesting that the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV templates be removed.(Robert94704 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks

For adding the speedy deletion to the POTD for 6/14/2009. I was just trying to figure out how to do that myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.187.128.99 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for the welcome note. I've been around Wikipedia for a while just haven't been very active at editing. This POTD was the first thing I found worth trying to C:SD. I've done a bit of rv. Mostly I just browse the articles looking for info or distraction. 134.187.128.99 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Bouma

it was revenge for stupid villa fans changes the tekst on our player eric djemba djemba's page ! take a look at that!

The answer to vandalism is clearly not more vandalism. Rror (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no thanks to yew at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juggaletta chick (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Riley

Why are you reverting my changes? The user who wrote those things have no idea what they are talking about. I'm sorry if this looks like I am the one vandalising, but I am not, as this is my first time using this. I really have to change that article because it is wrong.--Nafslee (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Cflm001 also made the same mistake. Congratulations for using the phrases 'gay' and 'He Fucked My Father' in a constructive way for the first time in my anti-vandalism career :) Welcome to Wikipedia! Rror (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

haha, no worries! Didnt think you'd ever see that did you. Even though it was annoying seeing it reverted constantly, I now know how to use this thing. You are doing a great job monitoring!--Nafslee (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.57.233 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replaced taxobox image with own

Greetings. Thank you for supplying many nice photos and adding them to appropriate articles. May I suggest, however, that the edit comment "replaced taxobox image with own" may rub some people the wrong way. A better option is to state how the new image is an improvement, such as "replaced taxobox image with one showing whole plant" or "replaced blurry taxobox image with one having better focus." This would be more considerate, and make it seem less like you are simply discarding the work of others. As I said, I do agree that the replacements you are making are improvements, and am merely concerned that your choice of edit comment may give people the wrong idea. Keep up the good work! --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I understand what you mean. I'm certainly not pushing in my pictures for my ego, I thought I'd be honest about the fact that they are my images, so people are more critical. If there are betters ones, good for Wikipedia. The pictures present do deserve an explanation why I think another one is more suitable, guess I would want the same if my images are replaced.

Will be more verbose in the future. Sorry if I offended anyone. --Rror (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Just a quick note to say thanks for contributing so many top-quality images. Keep up the good work! Smith609 Talk 10:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric car edits

Hi, Rror,

Why did you revert the changes I did in the Electric Car section while I was still working on them? Is it an accident? In which case I will revert back. If there is a reason, please let me know on this page.

By the way, I love your photos...

--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was using WP:HUGGLE for the first time yesterday. Just checked all my edits using it, and you seem to be the only 'victim'. Must have pressed the wrong button ;) Keep your contributions coming! --Rror (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rror! Have a nice day,

--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reports to WP:AIV

Hiya. Thanks for your help countering vandalism. Please note however, that IP's making just one or two bad edits shouldn't be reported to WP:AIV. Administrators expect to see a patern of persistent vandalism, that's going on at the time of the report. Remember that your warning may stop any further counter productive edits, so it's only fair to see what happens before reporting. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 08:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting to WP:AIV is done automatically by WP:HUGGLE. I assume(ed) the mechanism behind it to be reasonable, and many wikipedians are using it. You should talk to the developer of Huggle about AIV reporting. --Rror (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Huggle reports automatically even with one bad edit? That's crazy. Okay, I'll drop User:Gurch a note. Pedro : Chat 09:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can follow. Just checked the last 7 IPs that Huggle reported for me, and all of them had tons of warnings on their talk pages... --Rror (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just be carefull

Hi, im not trying to be critical just a general note. When reverting vandalism, make sure that it is definatly vandalism. Just because a person removes a large ammount of text from a page doesn't constitute vandalism, just make sure you check it. Im particulary talking about Kofi Annan where the ip-user removed unverifable information about his name, and some other stuff about the pronounciation of the name. The question you need to ask yourself is 'is the person definatley purposly trying to cause disruption?' and in this case i would say its possible but its also possible that his edit is done in Good faith. Always try to give the benefit of the doubt. If you really disagreed with the edit, you could have reverted it, but you would need to explain why, and not tag it as vandalism.

It might be usefull just to read over Wikipedia:Assume good faith and WP:VANDAL. This isnt criticisim im just letting you know, so you know for next time. Dont take it the wrong way. When i started learning about vandalism and policy i wish someone helped me along a bit. If you need any help at all drop me a message on my talk page. Cheers Printer222 (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of a complete section from an IP user without giving a reason seemed suspicious (often done by vandals). Left a note on user page. Rror (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is suspicious, so you should investigate it, but if it is slightly possible that the person removed it in good faith, i personally wouldn't delete it. On the other side of the page, if the person had a history of removing large ammounts of text and has been warned, then this would sugest that the editor is acting in bad faith, and you would delete it. It's just some friendly advice really. If you choose not to follow it, its up to you. Printer222 (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!!!

Just a quick note, if you find someone, either a new editor or an IP address that has vandalized a page, please place a warning template on his/her/it's talk page. This assists in notifying the user of his/her actions, and also assists other editors in notifying the editor as well, so we can all work together a little more smoothly. If you have any questions, ping my talk page Thanks!! Dusti^{complain/compliment} 13:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already doing that, have a look at my contributions: Revert/warn/revert/warn/WP:AIV/... Rror (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for your hard work reverting the unscrupulous vandals :) Gail (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldinho

Hiya Rror. I'm just curious as to why you decided to revert your own edit, here? The edit you originally reverted was clearly vandalism. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Did not intend to undo my edit - probably hit the revert button twice by accident in WP:HUGGLE. Thanks for spotting that. Rror (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah... I've never used Huggle before. Is "Undoing own edit" an automatic edit summary given by the tool, then? Thanks for the explanation, I was originally a slight bit confused. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, edit summaries are generated automatically. Rror (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page!

Hi! I've been watching some of your recent contributes to stopping vandalism. And your doing a fantastic job.

Though you are preventing vandalism, some people aren't satistfyed with your contributes. And are even willing to vandalise your user page at any risk. If you don't wan't your user page vandalised you may wan't to consider getting your user page locked. Once it is locked it will be safe from unwanted vandalism done by random IP addresses. You can request a page lock here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection

And please keep contributing to wikipedia by helping us put an end to vandalism. Thanks! Tedmund (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! My request has already been accepted ;) Wow, you are quite busy with Huggle yourself - keep going. Rror (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

if you check the source of my information you would clearly see that i did not copy and paste. thank you for answering me thoe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flmike420 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how does this count as vandalism? i really would like to know from you insted of thoes automated letters. look it up my, statistics are 100% real.

STATE OF FLORIDA LOCAL AREA UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS BY COUNTY: Flagler

DECEMBER 2008

LABORFORCE- 31599 EMPLYOMENT- 27902 UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL- 3697 RATE(%)- 11.7

NOVEMBER 2008

LABORFORCE- 31832 EMPLYOMENT- 28239 UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL- 3593 RATE(%)- 11.3

DECEMBER 2007

LABORFORCE- 30685 EMPLYOMENT- 28417 UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL- 2268 RATE(%)- 7.4

SOURCE: Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, Labor Market Statistics Center, Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

I received this message from you : The recent edit you made to Spearman's rank correlation coefficient constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Rror (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

actually I did not attempt to make any vandalism but made in copy-paste error (pasting a section on the whole article). I made my change again looking carefully to only modify the section. G.Dupont (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also noticed that - but too late. I removed the vandalism note from your user page shortly before you wrote this messeage here... Sorry for the confusion. Rror (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're Quick

That's three times now that I've went in to revert vandalism but before I can you've done it. Great job! Chuy1530 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: July 2008

Hello, Rror. You have new messages at Weeliljimmy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Good job with Huggle

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You're reverting very quickly nowadays with Huggle, and you're starting to beat me a lot, too! I award you this barnstar for that. -- SchfiftyThree 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your vandalism reversions are incredibly quick Anonymous101 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry I thought I was writing on the discussion page.--86.138.95.53 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate your fastness!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I hate it that it that you are so fast with reverting, you beat me all the time. You earn this. Oh and you are Austrian, that's a good reason as well ;-) So#Why 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid Criticism Section

Hey Rror,

I'm new to this wikipedia editing thing so I may have jumped the gun by removing the section. I did lodge my complaint in the discussion page, as did two other users, and felt I had enough support and it was warning enough to go ahead with the edit. I still think the section needs to be removed, though. I think it presents an obvious bias against Real Madrid and I don't think the article should be a collection of recent headlines. Cheers boss! Gatienza (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gatienza. I was patrolling the recent changes and the removal of a section without and explanation always looks suspicious. But it seems the removal has been discussed on the talk page and gained support. Please always provide an edit summary (for example: removing section as discussed on talk page), so it's easier to see that your edit is constructive. Rror (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He-Man Page

Dude, my edits are the truth. I provided a reference. In issue #47 of DC Presents, Superman is sucked into Eternia (the He-Man universe) and goes galevanting about with He-Man. In issue #48, a brief biography of He-Man or Prince Adam is given and when asked of his mother's whereabouts he says "I don't know, probably on Mars selling astro turf"

Septimus1337 (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Lol. Sorry for reverting then :) Rror (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're almost as fast as Epbr123 used to be!

Seriously, can you take a break? Is reverting using Huggle basically the only thing you do nowadays? I do think Huggle users should let others revert too... SchfiftyThree 22:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now the vandalism crowd and the anti-vandalism crowd doesn't like me? ;) But is it really that bad? You have 2493 edits this month so far and I have 3976 edits... I'm just using Huggle to relax a little at the end of the day. Rror (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novus ordo seclorum

I think our huggle reverts must have gotten crossed. The edit here[1] by me ended up having you warn me for removing nonsense from the page, and your edit putting it back in here[2]. Knowledgeum (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seems so. I removed the warning from your talk page. Keep on huggling ;) Rror (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Okey, the novelty of barnstars is wearing off now :P 203.122.240.118 (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your huggle-fu

...is most impressive... --Blehfu (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong?

Whats wrong with a little harsh critism? The Nazi's did alot of bad things such as the holocaust but they also enhanced the cultural climate of Germany and respecting its pask yet its always looked at in a bad light. Pakistan has no desire of killing six million jews but it doesn't care about culture, there is a complete lack of it. What Babur said was true and still is now almost five hundred years later. Baburghazi (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Do you even live in Englewood florida? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.232.204 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check this user's userpage, he is from Austria. SchfiftyThree 22:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for watching my talk page!

I want to extend my gratitude to the users

for keeping an eye on my sometimes heavily vandalized talk page. Thanks guys! Rror (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMS

Some vandalism on the Jonathan Agnew and Vic Marks pages is slipping through the net, IP addresses are adding stuff quicker than we can revert it, and we semi-protect the page for an hour until people get bored or would it be overkill? Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. They are very persistant. Rror (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Lebanon War casuality figures

Hello. I saw that you reverted my edits on 2006 Lebanon War. This was not vandalism, and I did not realize that this what a controversial issue, nor do I intend to become involved in it. Usually, I edit spelling, grammatical, and misusage whenever I see them. Including civilians treated for shock and anxiety in casualty figures is simply incorrect. These people are generally not considered casualties in the civilian sense of word. If they were soldiers, I believe they could be counted as casualties. These assertions are also in agreement with casualty. After looking at the most recent talk page, it seems that there is not a consensus. Seeing as how there aren't figures like this listed in any other wars/battles that I have looked at, I believe I am right in thinking they are irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.140.66 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I did not revert your edits - my revert was on complete nonsense from the IP 78.148.132.85 ([3]). Your edit was reverted by User:Flayer ([4]), so just copy and paste this to his talk page :) You can use the 'new section' tab on top of the talk page to start a new topic. By the way: welcome to Wikipedia! Rror (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I don't post very often, but have been editing for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.140.66 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Catcher

You're kicking my but today... Talk about fast reflexes. Ndenison ^talk 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Taylor

You corrected something that wasnt incorrect. Brian Taylor does say "triple m rooocks football", "triple m riiiiks football" and "triple m raaacks football". I dont see how its "bias or give undue weight to viewpoints". You were pretty quick to remove that though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubert101010 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading it. Sorry i put that on the page. i didnt know i could use this. thanks for deleting the bracket and leaving the slogan. by the way youve probably noticed i logged in just then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubert101010 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hubert101010. The problem is that I can not simply take you word for it. Wikipedia has a policy for that: WP:OR. Furthermore, is this information encyclopedic and really notable (WP:N)? Welcome to Wikipedia and keep contributing. Rror (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Allen

When I loaded Wikipedia today, there was a bar at the top that said the following:

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Lily Allen. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Rror (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I rarely edit anything - either due to a lack of knowledge or the inability to find a mistake - so I wasn't sure what this message was regarding. I was quite confused to find that my changes were construed as having been written from a biased point of view. I thought that it would be proper to use the word "than", since that's what the author intended, despite having typed "then". Also, I thought it was juvenile to use the word "sucks" in an encyclopedia. Is "is anything but great" inappropriate? Also, I'd seen "trainwreck" quite a few times in the article, and once as "train wreck". I made it consistent by removing the space. Oh, I also added a comma where I thought proper English grammar would mandate one.

When looking at the edits, I was pleased to see that Katharineamy reverted back to my edit, noting "the last version was better".

I'm sure you have a lot of work, monitoring the changes that people make. I don't doubt that a lot of them have malicous intent. I have read much of your "User talk:Rror" section, and I can see that you're well known for working quickly. After seeing the seemingly quick revert you did to the Lily Allen page after my edit, I think I'd like to offer a suggestion. With all due respect, slow down and think about what you're doing before you do it. Even though the Lily Allen article was accurate before my edit, I felt that it wasn't professional. I see a general lack of regard for spelling, grammar, and etiquette in today's society. Really, that's all that my changes dealt with.

So please tell me, how was my edit not from a neutral point of view? How did I introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints?

I will certainly read the introduction to editing as you have suggested, but God help us all if that article says that spelling and grammer corrections are prohibited.

216.31.249.116 (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now have a user name.

Neffje (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neffje. You are right, sometimes I am too fast. In this case I saw that the article has been vandalized 3 times within the last 15 minutes and someone used the phrases 'is anything but great' and 'trainwreck' - but I missed that those were already there. Happens a lot that someone is introducing personal bias/love or hate for a musician this way, but of course it was completely wrong to warn you in this case. Sorry. I'm only human and averaged over 10,000 edits my error rate is not so bad...

The text on your talk page is from a predefined template and should be targeted against 'the bad guys', not newcomers like you (WP:DONTBITE). So in short: it's all my fault and your edit makes perfect sense. Rror (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need Some Help...

Hello Rror, I noticed that you use HG for removing vandalism, I am quite new to Hg, and am not quite familiar with the setup. I was wondering if it is possible to filter out certain words in any new edits that may trigger vandalism, and not only show IP adresses that made contributions. If you could just sedn me in the right direction or give me some advice, that would be greatly appreciated. Touch Of Light (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. I think WP:Lupin uses a list of badwords, but haven't used this tool yet. I also thought about that recently, could come in handy. You could propose it on the Huggle page... Rror (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this is already being discussed: Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback/Archive 5#Profanity_Indicator. Rror (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton, Good luck with your future edits (your crazy fast my friend) =D Touch Of Light (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brian Schmitz

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Schmitz, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hordaland (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hordaland. Why are you giving me this warning? My only contributions to this article are reverts on page blankings an keyboards tests, i.e. vandalism. Rror (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for advice

Thanks for your comments Rror; I think I have now followed your advice. I will get my head round the structures one day! TSRL (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

How does this warrant a revert+warn? At most you should have reinserted the maintenance tags and left a note to the user to explain why they shouldn't be removed. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used Template:Uw-delete1 (not Template:Uw-vandalism1) which requests: "When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary". What's wrong with that? OK, I could have used the more specific Template:Uw-tdel1 manually... Rror (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the theme, you reverted back the text on Abdulla Daoud and warned the IP removing it [5] and [6]. As the text on that page is somewhere between complete garbage and an attack page "He has been awarded the highest honour in Doucheness by MTV" - I would have said the IP was trying to be helpful and at most should have got a note requesting edit summaries, or pointing them towards deletion tags. -Hunting dog (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the diff you will see that I used Template:uw-huggledelete2, which usually results in "Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary". Not sure why the IP got "constitutes vandalism". Rror (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll stop biting :-) Do you think that page would fit under one of the speedy deletion categories btw? I'd rather speedy than prod it but not sure what grounds to use. -Hunting dog (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that practiced with article deletion but it seems to be just coherent enough not to fall under speedy:patent nonsense. It seems the page creator failed to follow WP:GIANTDICK ;) Rror (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview request

Hello Rror. I am a journalist with The Sunday Times in Perth. I am writing a story about MPs' Wikipedia entries, and noticed your sterling work removing vandalism from Alan Carpenter's entry. May I please ask you a couple of brief questions? Davidcohen (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

You just reverted from my revert of a vandalized page back to the vandalized version and warned me for vandalization! Please slow down a bit and pay attention to what you are doing! --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work with vandal fighting today, I, CanadianLinuxUser, hereby award you this barnstar, because you were faster than I many times ;-) Keep up the great work ! --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert of the Food science article earlier today. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful, again

When reverting vandalism, you reverted vandalous edits back to a previously vandalized version.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 09:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your "again" is referring to the 'Please be more careful' section above: that was caused by two huggle users reverting an edit at the same time - also happend to me that my anti vandalism revert was reverted by another huggle user. Regarding Francis of Assisi: as mentioned, I am using huggle and only see the diff of the last edit (exactly this) and not the whole article. So if an article contains vandalism by a different user at different location, I can not see it. Rror (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was thinking about installing huggle. Not anymore.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konga

This is just getting ridiculous... Prince of Canada^{t | c} 10:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, quite amazing how much energy some vandals with dynamic IP assignment have... Rror (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see really funny, take a look at Final Destination books. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 11:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winterton, Lincolnshire

I suppose a village with about 5000 people should be a town and not a VILLAGE. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably :) Was reverting vandalism, apparently to a faulty version. Rror (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I fix town and category --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ain English Speaking School Edit

I have completely fixed that non sense vandalised Al Ain English Speaking School article. someone named Z7P had vandalised and destroyed the article. He should be blocked, and this article should be locked, from vandals trying to destroy the article. This is Z7P talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Z7P

Please delete his account or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master3049 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of the article! There is a system in place to deal with vandalism: WP:VANDAL. Basically a vandal is warned 4 times (there are templates for doing that) per month before he will be blocked, which can be requested here: WP:AIV.

If an article is heavily vandalized, temporary semi-protection can be requested here WP:RPP, but the occasional vandalism like on Al Ain English Speaking School is 'normal' so to say. Blocking of users and page protection can only be done by admins - I'm not one, but everyone can apply to become one. Happy editing. Rror (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I hereby award this Barnstar to Rror for his continuing efforts against Vandals. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've allready got a half dozen or so of the anti-vandalism Barnstars, so I figured I'd award you this one instead. Keep up the great work; I can't count the number of times you've beaten me to the revert punch today. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are not using WP:HUGGLE, so the 'competition' is not quite fair. Huggle is doing most of the work for me, but thank you for the barnstar none the less! Rror (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair or not, you are still doing an excellent job and are deserving of the award. Just because I'm reverting vandalism the old fashioned way (like my father before me, and his father before him, back to the times of Ancient Rome) doesn't diminish what a great job you're doing. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: digitaltrends spamlink cleanup

Thank you for the nice comment. =) Happy editing! --Silver Edge (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:revenge is a dish best served cold

You're very welcome. I just got bored with my homework and started using Huggle :) leujohn ^{(talk, contribs)} 12:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Hello, Rror! Regarding your level 2 warning to this IP user, would you really consider this IP edit to your talk page vandalism or a personal attack? Huggle does have the NPA warning option in the software. SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered NPA, but I'm not feeling attacked :) It's more the IP users opinion, which is not expressed constructively. Maybe I'm too soft after what this IP user left on my talk page. Rror (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

		The Userpage Shield
		Thank you for reverting personal attacks and vandalism on my talk page, keep up the good work! Scapler (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM by WASP12345

A user WASP12345 keeps removing content from the Miss Tourism World, entry climing it is rubbish, even though independent and supporting factual sources are provided, I belive he/she works for Miss Tourism World, and is deliberately vandalising the page to prevent their antics from being know, can this pagen be locked to prevent this continous vandalising by this sympathiaiser? 411GURU (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)411GURU[reply]

.

VANDALISM by WASP12345

WASP12345 keeps removing content from the Miss Tourism World, entry claiming it is rubbish can the page not be locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.121.165 (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pooktre

Hi this is blackash, do you have any recommendations on how to present this information in a more neutral manner that is still relevant and for notability. Thank you Blackash (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rror, thank you for leaving a comment on my talk page. Unfortunately Arborsculpture is linked to one person's methods of shaping. We don't wish to be a associated with Arborscuplture and it's damaging practices to trees.Blackash (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I just discovered that there is a huge discussion going on on the Arborsculpture talk page. I agree with MgM and AfD hero that Arborsculpture should be moved to a more neutral term. The article is not very good at the moment and would need rewriting anyway. A history overview section with Erubsack, Erlandson, you, Reames, etc... is needed to show the development of different methods and styles of this practice. Rror (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with what you say. The page written that way would be a more inclusive and interesting article. Blackash (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Arborsculpture to Tree Shaping, added in the informations from the Pooktre article, and done some edits. AfD hero (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rror I was editing Tree shaping talk page at the same time as you and I run into a conflict of editing.:-) One of the comments that you made was about "So you know are in a conflict of interests, you link to the guideline that states "COI editing is strongly discouraged", but you are still heavily editing against your 'competition'?"

I never agreed that we had a Conflict and in point of fact refuted that we did. Here is a quote from higher up the Tree shaping talk page "The issue we have is the linking of the name and method then the branding of both onto other people’s work. We see no conflict of interest, as we are not trying to brand anyone else work with our name or technique of shaping trees. Yes, we have linked our technique with Pooktre, which is why we have publicly stated that Pooktre only relates to our trees and not the art form as a whole. Hope this clears up my position in this discussion.Blackash (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rror, thanks for your words on the talk page of tree shaping. I thought it was going to be a disaster, but you managed to calm everyone down and explain the situation without alienating any of the tree shaping artists. AfD hero (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Goose Plane Crash

I understand that there has been media attention to this crash being caused by Canada Geese, but it is as valid as deciding that Irag has WMD. Wiki is not news and placing the text you did is not only news but inaccurate. The NTSB will determine the cause of this crash, so anything else is specualtion. My revert was not due to vandalism. It clearly stated that it is too soon to attribute this to Canada Geese. I have changed "blamed" to "speculated". Bob98133 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not sure if you really mean me. Just added a link to the main article about the crash [7], since people are adding speculation all the time, even though there are no facts. The edit before was removal of vandalism [8]. Rror (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick reply. Sure, no problem. I'm sure this will get changed 25 times by tomorrow anyhow! Bob98133 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala people

My edits to the article entitled "Sinhala people" have been thoroughly justified in the talk page for that article. Did you care to read it or are you just another nazi-Wikipedia moderator on a power high? I hope you realize that repeatedly reverting my edits to the page and accusing me of vandalism while consistently replacing content that is A) factually incorrect, B) deliberately misleading, and C)does a major injustice and marginalizes the Sinhalese people (I am a Sinhalese person and find that section of the article offensive) and is D) justified in the talk page is in itself vandalism. Hypocrite. Send me a message in response and don't revert my justified edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.33.44 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First of all, please try to be WP:CIVIL with other wikipedians... If you are making a major edit, like deleting a whole section of an article, please give an edit summary so it is easier for people like me, who are trying to spot vandalism to understand the motivation behind your edit. Just reference that there was a discussion on the talk page. Thank you. Rror (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Another thanks

You're welcome ;) I've already noticed you; you've beaten me to quite a few reverts already. Keep up the good work. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Keep up your efforts, your AIV reports are accepted with open arms =] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of External Links

Hello Rror, I saw your recent deletion of an external link on the BlackBerry Storm page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BlackBerry_Storm&curid=18082541&diff=272478905&oldid=272409431) and I was wondering if you could clarify your reasoning for deletion. It seems that the page linked contains relevant information that could help many BlackBerry Storm owners. «Coopkev2»^(talk) 17:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi coopkev2. The site you linked to contains a list of how-tos for the device, which is probably very similar to what the handbook of the device covers, and does not add anything to the article itself. While there are many many helpful pages/forums/etc about this device, Wikipedia is not a link repository: see WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:EL. Rror (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that three links would be considered a repository, and until a better link is found, I don't see why this one shouldn't stay. Little official help is available for this particular device, besides very rudimentary information. The website combines the advice found on several different forums, as well as shortcuts not mentioned in the official manual, and is more detailed than any others I have found so far. «Coopkev2»^(talk) 20:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about finding a better link, I don't think that tips on the use of a phone belong into an encyclopedia WP:NOTHOWTO; there are other places for that. But feel free to readd the link if you disagree. Rror (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I understand what you mean, but I think the link is okay in this instance. Thanks for your time. «Coopkev2»^(talk) 22:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree to that. :-P Rror (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips!

Thanks for the tips and reminder on the four tildes. For some reason I thought it was just three. :)

Thalagyrt (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Tyler Tran

Hi, as you noted, two pictures that I uploaded and added to the Natalie Tyler Tran page were tagged as lacking in copyright proof. I emailed Ms. Tran, got her ok, and forwarded the mail to the address "permissions-en@wikimedia.org". I then tagged the pages the individual uploaded pictures with the OTRS pending code. I presumed that someone who received the emails would then get to this page and replace my tag with the OTRS ticket. I'm fairly new to wiki so I may have misstepped but I was essentially making sure the pictures weren't deleted before an OTRS volunteer had a chance to ok them. Please advise if I misunderstood the instructions. What is the average no. of days before an OTRS volunteer can get to a page? I emailed them on March 8th.----aaftabj-- (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, but on the subject of Natalie Tran, I just thought I'd let you know that you tagged that photo of Natalie for speedy deletion on the wrong spot. That was a Commons image, and so I've gone ahead and just zapped your speedy notice on Wikipedia, and tagged the image for speedy deletion on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

It's good to know that there are at least two of us who know the difference between the adjective and the adverbial phrase. I was starting to feel isolated. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rror. You have new messages at Talk:Natalie Tran.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir

No. --80.223.127.229 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Hopkins

If it's a blatant hoax, you can just slap it with {{db-hoax}}; it doesn't need to go to AFD. Those two articles look blatant enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the heads up. First time I'm playing with page deletions :) Rror (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give an opinion

Hi please go to Tree shaping talk page [[9]] and give your opinion. I have also asked two other editors (AfD_hero and HelloAnnyong) for their opinion. Both who had also done some editing. Blackash (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Move: Tree shaping to Arborsculpture

Tree shaping article has undergone a series of mayor changes in the last few days. Here is the page before and now Duff has now proposed to change the article's name from Tree shaping to Arborsculpture. If you are interested please come and comment on Talk:Tree shaping. I am contacting everyone who has edited about arborsculpture Blackash have a chat 08:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfM on Tree shaping->Arborsculpture

Hello. You may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. Blackash have a chat 10:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titin redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

I've started a discussion to address the redirects associated with Titin. Since you edited one or other of the redirects at some point, or discussed it on one of the talk pages, I wanted to notify you of the redirect discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping

There is a proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents As you have had some involvement with these editors in question, you may wish to comment. Blackash have a chat 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceport

Thought you might be interested in the spaceport tag in OSM — Preceding unsigned comment added by RFC2324 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]