User talk:C886553

/Archive

Rollback
Don't be rolling back good faith edits. Undoing is fine but save rollbacks for vandalism. 23:00, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, please like me to a instance where I did. Also, I'll bet that you don't even know why you undo (and not rollback) good faith edits. Ajraddatz Talk 23:01, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you can leave a summary, you don't have to be rude  23:03, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be rude, although I am perhaps a bit defensive. I have over 6 months of counter-vandalism experience across Wikia, have administrator access on 19 wikis (15 if you exclude the ones that I created), as well as rollback here, on Uncyclopedia and two Wikipedias. I am mainly, however, curious as to which good faith edit I rolled back. Also, correct reason. Ajraddatz Talk 23:06, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here. The other 3 edits made by the IP were positive contributions. It wasn't spam, or blanking of an article, it should have been reverted saying please don't remove info from an article. 23:08, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That edit removed good content, and the user was warned. There was no reason to provide a summary for that, it was obviously an edit that damaged the content of the article, whether or not it was done in good faith. Ajraddatz Talk 23:09, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whenever an edit is done in good faith, you NEVER rollback. You ALWAYS revert with a reason. The reason for that is to not drive away new editors. It removed 1 sentence, and it could have easily been an accident. 23:11, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a lot to learn my friend :3. First of all, the new contributors for the most part don't know how to access a page's history, much less use it. Custom summaries are ment to provide a reason for a controversial revert when an experienced editors is looking through a history, to enlighten them as to why it was reverted. Ajraddatz Talk 23:13, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in this case, if someone was to look through the history and compare those diffs, they would instantly see why it was reverted. Hence, no need for a custom summary. End of story. Ajraddatz Talk 23:17, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You have something to learn. I dunno what you do on your other wikis, but here, you never rollback good faith edits. Abide by that, or I'll see to it that your rollback tools are removed. 23:19, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that edit removed content, it is not obviously apparent that it was good faith. Stop being a dick, and stop taking your past misgivings of me, and please actually read what I'm saying and accept it. There is no reason to be arguing over this. Ajraddatz Talk 23:21, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its just a simple request, please use undo instead of rollback for edits that may be in good faith, you don't have to leave a summary other than the default. I'm not mad (haloolah123 may be...). Thank you.  23:23, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not mad, I'm not being a dick, I'm just asking you to be slightly more careful. It's not like he spammed or blanked the page, he removed one thing. A lot of new users just try things out like that. (Why we give them the "possible vandalism" template, so they can learn to do that in the sandbox, and how to edit properly.) Just using rollback and they may be driven away. 23:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the fact that I always do try to undo good faith edits, and leave custom summaries. This case, however, per above can not be 100% for sure identified as a good faith edit. Regardless of the other contributions by that editor, there was no reason for that info to be removed, and it is now back and the IP has been warned. It is my intent to follow all of the rules of the wiki, most dominantly common sense. Also, as I said, the custom summaries are for the experienced editors and not the newbies. Additionally, I did give that IP test1, so I don't know what you are so upset about. :S Ajraddatz Talk 23:28, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have received a few edit conflicts in the attempt to leave this message, but Ajr should know that if the user was under the impression that the content they removed was not helpful (I assume this to be the case) than it is considered a good faith edit and should not be directly reverted. 23:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * They didn't leave an edit summary, so who knows what his or her intentions were. I see the unexplained removal of what looks to be a fine sentence as either a test edit or vandalism, and have treated it as such. It should be pretty clear to people looking through the diffs that I rolled back the edit because of that unexplained removal, and thus was warranted. Because other users are wondering if it was done in good faith, why not ask the IP? If he was removing it because it wasn't correct, whatever, then he should be willing to explain. Ajraddatz Talk 23:35, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tip for everyone: Don't try and criticize Ajr's antivandal work. His reverts and undos are just and correct. They also never end in anything less than a super long conversation. The reason you don't revert but undo is so the person knows why it was undone. Any user seeing it, even them, would realize why it was reverted. 23:32, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I got like 6 edit conflicts to post 3rd message and 3 for this. I'm not questioning your anti-vandal work, I'm just giving a friendly reminder: Even if it MAY be vandalism it still has a chance to be good faith, and that is why you should use the undo rather than the rollback. I don't want to see your rollback right removed, I just want you to save it for vandalism, that's all. 23:39, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't understand that literally any edit could be done in good faith, such as an accident. I know many people who have accidentally blanked pages while trying to edit them. Point is this; anyone who cares would know exactly why I reverted it. Because of that, there is no need for a custom summary which would explain why I reverted it. It is redundant and takes more time in this case. Haven't I already said this like 6 times? Ajraddatz Talk 23:42, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Calm down, we just want you to use undo if you the edit can be seen as good faith, things that can't be seen as good faith are vulgarity and things of the sexually nature. Now just to calm everyone down, here's a kitten having a bad day. http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/694/snortcat.gif Feel better? 23:47, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna pretty much stay out of this, but everyone please take it down a notch. 23:48, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I'm as calm as I can be when talking to three people who know far less about counter-vandalism than myself, and who are telling me things that I already know, and not listening to a thing that I tell them. Also, I'm not at all upset, although I am being serious. :S Ajraddatz Talk 23:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm calm too. You might be surprised how much some people know. And I read everything you said, but that doesn't make it right. You took appropriate action when putting a message on that IP's talk page. However, reverting with a reason was more appropriate in this situation, whether it takes more time/effort or not. 23:54, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please get someone who knows nothing of this to compare the diffs, and ask him why he/she thinks that I reverted it. If they can give you a reason anything close to "he reverted the removal of that sentence", then there will have been no need for a custom edit summary. When reverting edits, it is best not to guess at the intention of the person, and better to instead look at it from a completely factual point of view, and act appropriately. When I look at that edit, I see a sentence that was removed without reason. Without any assumptions, that is a test edit. Hence, I treated it as such. Ajraddatz Talk 23:59, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm trying to be really nice but PLEASE don't talk down to others. 23:55, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are abusing the AEAE policy now. Ajraddatz Talk 23:59, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, how? 00:01, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I do have more experience than either of you in this area, and hence have a greater knowledge base about it. That use of AEAE would be saying that everyone was equal in every single way, which was something that was addressed in a forum recently. Ajraddatz Talk 00:03, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe he meant the condescending way in which he felt it was directed. 00:05, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict withHaloolah123: 00:07, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

What people are forgetting here is that it is not enough to acknowledge that there is good faith out there, but that you must also assume good faith when you are unsure. 00:09, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, this needs to stop. This is a waste of my time. Second of all, you are all misusing the AGF policy in regards to reverting; the custom summaries are only there to explain controversial reverts so that users know why the edit was reverted. There is no point in using a custom summary for an edit in which it is clear why it was reverted; that is redundant. That is why you do not rollback obviously good faith edits; since the reason for reverting may be controversial. This edit in question can not be immediately identified as good faith, and because it looks like a test edit, was treated as such. Enough said. If you really want to argue the exact wording of policies, then start a YG thread on them. Honestly, I do know more than both of you about this topic. Take that as you will. This is really ridiculous. Do not leave any further messages on this subject. Thanks. Ajraddatz Talk 00:12, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is forcing you to read them. I apologize for wasting so much of your oh so precious time. Just be more careful in the future please. That's all I care about. 00:15, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of stop can't you understand, and what part of the reason I have given for rollbacking that edit is so far beyond your comprehension. Honestly, stop this. I am very careful, and from what is above you should know that I know what I'm talking about. Stop this garbage. Ajraddatz Talk 00:18, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * We are only asking you to leave edit summaries when undoing an edit and to not revert good faith or ambiguous edits. It is a small effort that can avoid a lot of hurt feelings, confusion, and this. With that, I will avoid commenting again in this discussion. 00:20, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll stop commenting when you stop insulting my intelligence. I'm pretty darn smart, at least smart enough to figure out that saying "beyond my comprehension" is a breach of RS:UTP. 00:22, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning your intelligence, I am questioning your experience in this area. Stop. Ajraddatz Talk 00:25, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what have you been doing instead of reading the replies I have given? I rolled back this edit with the default summary because there would be, and is, no confusion as to why I reverted it. Honestly, look for yourself. Why you people have wasted an hour of my time with this is beyond my comprehension; and I only reply to defend myself, which is why I'm still here. Ajraddatz Talk 00:25, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose just sucking it up and saying you'll try to do better in the future is too hard for you. Since you're so concerned about it, I'll stop wasting your time. 00:29, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just spent an hour of my time explaining to you in detail why there was no reason to provide a custom summary for an edit in which it was completely obvious as to why I reverted it. This is not a pride thing, I make mistakes all of the time and admit to them. However, there isn't any point in admitting to a mistake which I haven't made. Stop. Ajraddatz Talk 00:31, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * All of this is childish and I'm not going to support one person either way, I do not want to get pulled into this. But I am saying that this is quite ridiculous. XScoobsx 00:27, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Legal stuff
Can you force Coolnesse to stop breaking the laws of physics? Stelercus is a horrible lawyer, as he hasn't contacted the party at fault yet. 01:14, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall attempt to rectify the situation. Ajraddatz Talk 01:15, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was considering nuking him to get my point across, but if he disobeys the laws of physics, then I don't see the point in throwing a nuke at him. 01:17, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * For all we know, he could use a fire hose to put out the reaction :3 Ajraddatz Talk 01:19, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, if the reaction has died down sufficiently, and the hose shoots heavy water (dideuterium oxide), then technically it could work. 01:20, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmpf, all lies. We don't even know exactly what type of energy is released from a nuclear reaction (we call it nuclear radiation for lack of a better term), or for that matter what even happens during a nuclear reaction. All we know is that it breaks apart the bonds in the nucleus, and does big boom. BIIIIIIG BOOM. Ajraddatz Talk 01:25, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh gluons. Pesky little things, aren't they? Well, the boom is fun, at least, especially when I drop it on certain pages. 01:28, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Re:Block
In my opinion, it fully does matter how tiny an offense is (or if that edit could even be termed as one, I would prefer to give the IP the benefit of the doubt here). Unless the history is extensive and the IP has constantly vandalised, I will not block for extremely minor edits such as those. Thanks. 14:29, May 18, 2010 (UTC)