User talk:Tangent747
Hello
[edit]Please resist the urge to place a welcome template anywhere on this page, and I can sign my edits and do all kinds of wiki magic like this:
Hello
Thanks--Tangent747 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
February 2009
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Louvre has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 14:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes sorry that was caued by lag, I clicked "restore" prior to your reversion of the vandalism in question, attempting to revert it myself.--Tangent747 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Got it, I saw your edit on top of/after my edit. If you get RollBack I suggest you grab Huggle. It's much faster and more efficient for rolling back vandalism. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 14:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, one of the reasons I just put in an rfp for rollback was because twinkle lag often made me have to revert my own reverts - usually because cluebot would do a revert while twinkle was loading scripts and so my revision would go back to the vandalism one. Still, my rfp just passed (rather quickly) so in cases of obvious vandalism I should hopefully be able to avoid this issue in future. I don't wish to start using Huggle untill I have a bit more experience though, for fear of making a more damaging errors.--Tangent747 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Great! Glad to hear it was approved. Even just using the Rollback will make things smoother. Huggle is a powerful tool and it can quickly make a ton of bad edits if you aren't careful. However you can head over to Huggle Page their information is great. Happy editing! e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 14:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, one of the reasons I just put in an rfp for rollback was because twinkle lag often made me have to revert my own reverts - usually because cluebot would do a revert while twinkle was loading scripts and so my revision would go back to the vandalism one. Still, my rfp just passed (rather quickly) so in cases of obvious vandalism I should hopefully be able to avoid this issue in future. I don't wish to start using Huggle untill I have a bit more experience though, for fear of making a more damaging errors.--Tangent747 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Got it, I saw your edit on top of/after my edit. If you get RollBack I suggest you grab Huggle. It's much faster and more efficient for rolling back vandalism. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 14:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of this? LOL!!!!! a Thanks for the update!!! Kevin (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Cake has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Kyle1278 (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that i warned the wrong person.Kyle1278 (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe no problem, I seem to be getting quite good at collecting erroneous vandalism warnings ;)--Tangent747 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry
[edit]Am really sorry that warn was done by mistake, thank you for reverting vandalism on wiki
|
The Purple Star | |
| I award you this barnstar for warning you for vandalism by mistake Maen. K. A. (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
- No worries, warning me is quite a popular activity anyway (not that I'm becoming bitter :P), I wonder how far up the warning levels I
canwill climb. And I thankyou for my purple star....I didn't know there were friendlyfire barnstars ;)--Tangent747 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ur welcome, this stat is special for such a situation, enjoy editing Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
No Problem...
[edit]Vandals really grind my gears... Wysprgr2005 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thank you for your diligent reverts at Jungle bunny, as well as all your other reverts, all very appreciated, thanks! SpitfireTally-ho! 19:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe, no problem, though I think in the case of that article your reverting skills were somewhat faster - since that article seemed to be getting re-vandalised every few seconds, I just watched it on HG for awhile and hit R every time it got changed back, though even hitting R less than half a second after the change appeared, you still beat me to the revert about 5 consecutive times :P--Tangent747 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you :). All the best, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Murray Park School
[edit]Hi, the recent edit to Murray Park School which you reverted was quite possibaly good faith if you see what it was changed from. You may want to review your warning to the user. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that as soon as I reverted it, though you beat me to restoring the article to it's original form. Sorry about that, I have removed the warning from the user's talkpage, as I see that, in the context of the previous revision, it could be considered good faith as opposed to vandalism. Again, sorry.--Tangent747 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Great, it's no problem, thanks for sorting it out :). Keep up the good work. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank You
[edit]
|
Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages Maen. K. A. (talk) |
No problem ;)--Tangent747 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)