| Revision as of 15:10, 31 March 2007 editJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,625 edits →User talk:AumakuaSatori: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:12, 31 March 2007 edit undoJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,625 edits →User talk:AumakuaSatori: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| :I didn't see him use the discussion pages...he simply changed collapse to "demolition", did the same thing here, , added "in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein." to the WTC 7 article, among other things and is now POV pushing this...so yes, it is vandalism. How dare you!--] 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | :I didn't see him use the discussion pages...he simply changed collapse to "demolition", did the same thing here, , added "in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein." to the WTC 7 article, among other things and is now POV pushing this...so yes, it is vandalism. How dare you!--] 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't see that as vandalism though. Policy states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." (]) --] 15:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | ::I don't see that as vandalism though. Policy states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." (]) --] 15:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::In fact you made is much closer to vandalism than the one you sent the warning about. It restores a spelling error. I won't edit war with you, but I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error. --] 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:12, 31 March 2007
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC) |
Rosie Odonnel, conspiracy theory
Hi, I reverted you here due to BLP concerns. You can't put anything negative into an article without sourcing it properly in the article. Also raised the concern on the article talk page. Thanks! - Denny 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- She said it...it will be more readily available in day or two. Fox news was all over this latest moronic comment last night. I'm looking for asource now, and when I find it, the category will stay until she recants.--MONGO 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Just as long as the source calls her a conspiracy theorist. - Denny 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Go check out the O'donnel talk page, it's sourced now. All good. - Denny 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
User talk:AumakuaSatori
Hi MONGO. I removed your vandal warning template as I thought it was inappropriate. If you disagree with the user's edits, I'd like to see you use discussion and references to reliable sources rather than labelling them a vandal. I don't see any vandalism in the user's edits but an attempt to improve the article. Best wishes, --Guinnog 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't see him use the discussion pages...he simply changed collapse to "demolition", did the same thing here, , added "in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein." to the WTC 7 article, among other things and is now POV pushing this...so yes, it is vandalism. How dare you!--MONGO 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that as vandalism though. Policy states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." (WP:VAND) --Guinnog 15:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- In fact this edit you made is much closer to vandalism than the one you sent the warning about. It restores a spelling error. I won't edit war with you, but I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error. --Guinnog 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see that as vandalism though. Policy states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Misplaced Pages. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." (WP:VAND) --Guinnog 15:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)