User talk:Steven Crossin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andonic (talk | contribs) at 14:16, 6 March 2008 (→‎Note.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Cro0016/Nav

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Cro0016/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


VANDALISM THREAT
Guarded __ __ __ __ __


Excuse me?

  • Steve, why pray tell did you revert the external link I included on the Hamlet page? Not only is it relevant but it is a far better site than the other HyperHamlet site that is referenced. And, if I do want to have that link, http://www.thefinalclub.org/work-overview.php?work_id=5, included, what is the best course of action for doing so? I posted to the discussion page but no one commented either way so I just added the link myself. I honestly think thefinalclub.org is a site that would appeal to the community of wikipedians concerned with teaching the world more about Shakespeare. Your thoughts and discussion on this matter would be greatly appreciated. [user: Andrewmagliozzi]


  • How is User:MIGHTYJD vandalizing?? He and RC were carrying on a conversation about a totally fine topic, and you warned him not once, but twice. Those warnings seem quite out of place to me, and you should probably review edit histories before you go and falsely warn people. elisatalk. 17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, it is not technically vandalism, however, see this diff. On Wikipedia, users are asked to be civil, and refrain from personal attacks. That edit was a personal attack, or at the ver least, was not cilil, so was reverted, and they were warned. I use Huggle, and the default template is a Vandalism template, though a Spam or Test edit template can be given. I can chabge the warning to mention No Personal Attacks, if you wish.

And, in regards to this diff, you are right about that one. I have removed the warning. Steve Crossin (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks. It's my brother anyways, he was just trying to be annoying. -.- Thanks anyways! elisatalk. 13:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rave vandalism

Sorry man, didn't mean for it to actually appear on the page. It was not my intent to vandalize. I literally was changing it right after I posted it, though it seems you were far quicker (even though it was the moment after). Anyway, I do feel that the reference to football is off, and I wonder if that in itself is vandalism! I would like to see where unions and football are mentioned in reference to rave parties... that is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.212.188 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no problem 168.103.212.188 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism template

I changed it because the template hadn't been updated in seven hours or so. A quick look at recent changes showed nothing out of the ordinary (4 is used for "normal levels of vandalism") and the backlog of AIV mentioned in the old summary was gone - in fact, AIV was empty. So I changed it to 4. Xenon54 22:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of 7805

I notice you undid the vandalism warning you left on my talk page about my change to 7805, but you did not undo your revert. I believe this was a legitimate change I made. Is there some reason you left it reverted, or should I simply redo the change? -- Foogod (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, the revert I made should stay in place. As the article has been proposed for merging, a clear consensus in favour of merging must be established. I reverted the warning, because what you did was not vandalism, just not a following of procedure, that is, unless a consensus has been established. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a proposed change, announced it on both Talk:7805 and Talk:7812, requested feedback, and waited a week before making the actual change. The only comments I got were in favor of the change. The previous discussion on the talk page (for over a month) appeared to be largely in favor of the merger as well, the only dissention being from a single anonymous user who did not respond to earlier comments regarding his/her statements, and as far as I can tell probably hasn't even been back to Wikipedia since. There appears to be more than adequate consensus to me. Do you believe that these pages should not be merged? If so, please explain why so that we can discuss it properly, instead of just reverting the change.

As is noted in WP:CON, consensus is generally achieved specifically by making changes, and it even explicitly encourages being bold to this end. I fail to see how my changes deviated in any way from this stated accepted practice. -- Foogod (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, you're completely right, and you have every right to make the merge. I actually didn't review the merger discussions, which I probably should have. But as consensus is clear, go ahead with the merges. I was only pointing out that consensus should be achieved first, possibly an edit summary of something like "merged as a result of merge discussion" would help people patrolling recent changes. Cheers. Steve Crossin (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for confirming.. Sorry if I seemed a bit abrupt, but it is a little frustrating to try to make contributions, in what I understood to be the appropriate way, just to have them instantly reverted with no idea of why or what I did wrong.. I can see how it might not have been entirely obvious from your perspective, though, and I'll try to be more careful about my edit summaries in future.. -- Foogod (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dansville

Hello, I edited out the section about Dansville library because I know the guy who put that there (editing under IPs in the subnet 131.111.x.y); he's been adding nonsense with citations referring to books admins are unlikely to check; I'm trying to revert his edits. For more of his work, see Solitude (the edits by Jon Wilson), Manufacturing (IP 131.111 edits which add a paragraph about the difference between manufacturing and fabrication) and Woodworking (edits by Jon Wilson again, relating to Aztec wood preservation techniques which are again entirely fictitious and cite an obscure book on South American archaeology which in fact has no bearing on the subject). 131.111.250.142 (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes the books certainly exist. Unfortunately, he isn't in fact acting in good faith. 131.111.250.142 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence re: Dansville: [1] See how the referenced pages are about a broad history of Michigan under British control in the 18th century, and not much to do with libraries or municipal funding. 131.111.250.142 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, in regards to that book, I personally checked the existence of the book, and I informed them of my opinion here. It's on your user page, strangely enough. I would suggest you create an account, warnings on a large subnet, such as yours, could affect a few people, such as yourself. And I don't want people to get warned/blocked who do not deserve it. I acted in good faith here, I couldn't check the fact in the book, but seeing the books existence, was enough for me to assume it was probably a true fact. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand... you can check the fact. Click the link; it's a Google "preview" which lets you view every page. Reading the pages in question shows they have nothing to do with the topic in question. 131.111.250.142 (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I got so mad because people keep removing my Edits on the Linux article. and I got so mad i didnt take it very well. i was wondering if you had any tips on forcing people to leave my edits alone. they contain verifiable facts from on the record sources. I did intend to vandalize those pages, but only becuase i was upset my legit edit kept getting removed by hard core sticklers. what can i do to make them stop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpolster2005 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, well, first of all, if they are reverting your edits, which you believe to be true and factual, then you must cite a reliable source backing up your statememnt, an I'm sure you know, content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. However, you should never vandalise a page, just because you are mad. I would suggest you stay cool when editing. Discuss your concerns with the editors, and if you are unsatisfied by their reverts after discussion, seek intervention from an administrator. Feel free to post a message here anytime. Steve Crossin (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since You Have Two of Those...

I figure I'll award you this one instead :):

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I, Persian Poet Gal, hereby award Cro0016 this barnstar for proving to be a valiant vandal fighting knight. Keep up the good work ;). ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomi Deutch

Hi Steve,

Earlier today I placed a CSD A7 on Nomi Deutch. I see it's been removed. From my reading of the revision history, it appears that the creator of the article removed the tag out of process. Would that be correct? Best regards, Xdenizen (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi again! Thanks for that. I'm a vandal fighter and New Page patroller as well, so I appreciate how busy you've been. I can't count how many articles I've tagged today and vandals I've reverted and reported. Cheers for double checking my suspicions on that one. Best regards! :) Xdenizen (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very grateful for your help today, actually. I don't have much direct contact with other Wikipedians. I suspect that's the lot of the Wikignome. ;) I was granted +rollbacker on January 10th and prior to that I used Twinkle. I use a combination of the two now, rollback in blatant cases (with TW for warnings) and TW where rollback might not be constructive or appropriate. I've been around Wikipedia since 2004, but I created my account in early 2006. I enjoy foiling the efforts of vandals and others who make the 'pedia a collection of crud rather than a useful resource.

I suspect I may have deletionist tendencies. :) Cheers! Xdenizen (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yikes! That's one hell of an +count bump! Makes me feel like a slacker. ;) Xdenizen (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Huggle, no can do mate. I use Fedora 7 Linux, so I'm stuck with rollback and Twinkle as far as I can tell. Still, we struggle on. ;) Be well and if I can ever be of assistance don't hesitate to drop me a line! Xdenizen (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be much obliged for any tools which can improve my ability to can the vandals. :) Xdenizen (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I have the full Java doo-dad installed on my box, so I think I'll give VF a go. Be well! Xdenizen (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Jeremy Michael Boorda

I see you encountered user:72.204.219.46, aka Harvardlaw (talk · contribs). He's a banned user who never tires of promoting himself and his heroes. As with all banned users, his edits may be reverted on sight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good grief! I don't even have that many socks in my drawer! Well, it's what I do on Wikipedia. I revert vandalism. Sometimes for more than half of the day. It's something I take pride in, and I have my adopter to thank. Ever since I did my Anti-Vandalism course, ive been at war with vandals, and that will never stop. Steve Crossin (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Abate

I've blocked Poverty78 temporarily to stop the edit-warring; there actually is such a rap artist [3] though whether he's notable is dubious and I'm looking into it now. Black Kite 10:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, thanks for that. Could you let me know the outcome? Sorry if my reverting of their edits was overkill, it was just my gut instinct, and I'm using Huggle, they appeared to be a vandal, as per their edit history displayed in Huggle. Steve Crossin (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the article and unblocked Poverty78: I'm still not sure whether he meets our notability guidelines though he's been mentioned in WP:RS, as placed in the article. Black Kite 10:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

thanks for the Barnstar, and yeah I was in my IRC channel as "Warpath".. :P ..--Cometstyles 10:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Obviously, I made a mistake. It seems that I wanted to revert the same Vandalism as you did, and you were faster than I am. Also, it seems that I failed to realise that you had already reverted the edit. Sorry for this. I apologise. Kind regards, --Abrech (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal S. Copeland

Thanx for reverting that unanonymous UNDOing of my edit. Ironically, he UNDID your work claiming that you didn't give an explanation, though he only complained about my grammar. Such are the dramas from people who dislike homeopathy. Ironically, they seek to defend "science" and "medicine" by deleting references to history and to research. DanaUllmanTalk 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your advice here

Hi Steve,

Yesterday I nominated an article for deletion. Looking through the history things seem to have gone rather askew. I suspect sockpuppet. Would you review this for me? Thanks in advance, Xdenizen (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey

Sorry about dropping off the face of the earth, I just wrapped up to FAC's and have two in progress right now with another one coming up soon, and in real life I had a big audition (I'm an actor). So, you wanted help with Karen Hayes? Let me know if there is anything else, I'll work on it tomorrow around 4-7 PM Eastern. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your references have to look like this if they are just repeats of other references <ref name = "bauer"/>, include QUOTES and the forward slash in order to keep the reference from eating the rest of the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page

I just reported the vandal to WP:AIV. Hey, another 24 fan! Enigma msg! 08:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

for reverting the Vandalism on my talk page! Kind regards, --Abrech (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for reverting vandalism on my talk/user page for more than 5 times (in words: FIVE times!). Many thanks, Abrech (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South African Patriot

Many thanks for your kind offer of help. I would be very grateful if you could take necessary steps to protect the article and talk against continuing edit war/vandalism Mark Hasker (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reborn doll

Regarding my edit to Reborn doll, I certainly did leave a descriptive edit summary. Note that a user called "Almostbabies" added links to the Almost Babies website and an eBay search that specifically looks for their items for sale. WP:Linkspam seems to cover it. Why did you revert my change? If it is because I did it from my IP address and not from my regular account (sorry, I am not on my laptop, and can't remember my password which is stored on it), I think you were a little too quick on the draw there. 66.235.57.247 (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; no hard feelings, these things happen. (I'm actually user ManekiNeko when I bother to log in, which isn't often anymore.) I've just fixed the page; hopefully someone else won't revert it now. 66.235.57.247 (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday's Law

Regarding you reversion of my edits to Faraday's law, I can assure you that there is only one Faraday's law. I was not experimenting and there is no need to mention the sandbox. Steve Byrne's edits constituted a gross misunderstanding based on the fact that the partial time differential version of Faraday's law that is found in Maxwell's equations omits the vXB effect. He seems to think that this means that there are two Faraday's laws ie. one that includes the vXB effect and one that omits it. We cannot re-write an article because of this kind of confusion on the part of one person. 202.69.178.230 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for the reply; no hard feelings, these things happen. (I'm actually user ManekiNeko when I bother to log in, which isn't often anymore.) I've just fixed the page; hopefully someone else won't revert it now. 66.235.57.247 (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which page are you talking about?202.69.172.92 (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Gay

Hi,

I would like to know why you reverted my edits on Rudy Gay : I just added a link to the french wikipédia page about Rudy Gay.

MIjy (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. MIjy (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help on the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships reversion on the medal table. There is an IP user from Russia who is trying to change the Soviet Union and merge it with Russia though they do not seem to understand. Again, thanks. Chris (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're most welcome. Actually, I reverted it because I saw User:Sceptre revert the same editors edit a few minutes before I made my revert. But I'm glad I could help. I'm sure you will see me around, I live to fight vandalism. Steve Crossin (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:3RR

Hey there, no problem! I'm happy to help. I've blocked the guy for edit warring. In the future, can you supply diffs of edits instead of just the versions? That would be much appreciated. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 14:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to get them from the user's contributions page; you may also jump into the page's history and get diffs from there. The way to do so is shown here; if you could click the "Compare selected versions" button there, you'd see a diff between the version on the 18th of May and the one on the 19th. Also, thanks for repairing my userpage! And I guess admins do get a bit more attacks, probably because we're the ones who carry out blocks and deletions. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and sure, reverting to the last good version (commonly called the LGV) is acceptable. Just make sure you include any positive changes that may have been affected. Also, in the case of suspected sockpuppets, see WP:SSP; there are steps there to help if you think another user has puppets and is using them malevolently. Hope that helps! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield

Hi Cro0016, what was the purpose of this edit? Fusionmix 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • That was a complete accident. I'm using Huggle to fight vandalism, and another editor must have reverted a split second before I did. I promise you, I do not vandalise Wikipedia. See my userboxes and my barnstars for proof. It was just a case of being beaten by another vandal fighter. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I had dropped a warning, but realized that you must be a fairly experienced editor, removed it, and wrote a note instead. I've made the same mistake several times before, but thankfully I use Twinkle, which stops reverting when an edit by a different user has been done in the interim. Thanks for clearing that up, I just wanted to make sure. Cheers, Fusionmix 15:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Experienced? Me? No way! :P I just really have a passion for fighting vandals. And many people ask, why do I do it? I say, because the purpose of Wikipedia is good, and I believe in it. So I'll do all I can to fight vandals. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for that little help of yours;-) Malteser.Falke (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are most welcome. I just fight vandals because I believe in the purpose of Wikipedia. And I'll do anything to keep it clean. When people thank me, it helps me continue fighting the never ending vandals, so thank you :) Steve Crossin (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Wikipedia talk:Requested articles

I'm confused by your edits of Wikipedia talk:Requested articles on 29 Feb. You reverted an edit that blanked the page but then reverted your own edit, so the page is currently blank. The page was getting a bit long — maybe you intended to archive it but got interrupted? Would you like to go back and complete the process perhaps? Regards, Qwfp (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was actually an accidental revert/unrevert of the page. However, I am embarrased to say, I am not sure how to archive that page, only my talk page. And I reverted it because Huggle displayed this in the diff, and I thought it was vandalism, so I reverted it. Anyway, I have undone the edit that blanked the page, could you archive it for me? Thanks alot. Sorry for any trouble I caused. Steve Crossin (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for undoing that. I had a look at archiving it but it turns out that there are already four archive pages, though it appears there was was no link to them. I may try to sort it out but don't hold your breath. Qwfp (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. As there were no active discussions I moved everything to Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Archive 5. This is only the second time I've archived a talk page myself. There are clear step-by-step instructions on 5Q5's user page. Qwfp (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Oda Mari (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude.. adding a new page?.. = Vandalism?

Asking WHY he marked it for speedy deletion gets me a level 2 warning.. do you guys really hate unions or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdnonmars (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Enigma msg! 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought to myself. "Steve better not step out of line again, or he's getting reported to AIV... by himself! Enigma msg! 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but I know the admins would unblock me in a flash. As it's an accident. And I have to request semi-protection of this page, its getting vandalised like crazy. For the record, I have the highest amount of recent reports on the AIV at the moment (15) :D Steve Crossin (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfair advantage. Huggle shut down on me so I only reported one in the last hour. :( Enigma msg! 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. Get used to it. Life isn't fair :P Well, I keep getting vandalised, so I suppose I'm suffering too. Steve Crossin (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:AndonicO pointed out that this means you're not on the Huggle whitelist. I don't understand it, because you have 500 edits. Enigma msg! 18:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am on the Huggle whitelist. Sometimes I have double reverted a page, so reverted my revert, and self warned myself. If that makes sense. hang on. Its nearly 6am. So i need coffee. Steve Crossin (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I checked to make sure. Even with a double revert, Huggle shouldn't be warning a whitelisted user, much less reporting them to AIV (see below). Enigma msg! 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report

Did you mean to report yourself? [4] Hut 8.5 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, It was an accident, here was my explanation.
    • Requesting an admin remove this report. I am using Huggle, and I accidentally, through some reverts, have warned myself, but if you look at the diffs, you will see I haven't vandalised, I have been diligently fighting vandalism. I've just been going at a rate so fast, trying to curb the vandals, that I accidentally reported myself, due to warning myself excessively, accidentally. However if you feel I should be blocked, then do so :( Steve Crossin (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have never had any intention of blocking you - I just thought it was rather strange/amusing that you reported yourself. I removed the report a while ago. I don't know anything about Huggle or how it works, so I can't really help you. Hut 8.5 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no block is due here, but you need to be really really careful. This type of thing is happening way to much, and is confusing new/innocent users. Tiptoety talk 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the fact I reported myself was confusing? I didn't even know that was possible. I assume you looked at the diffs that the Huggle report issued. Obviously they were non-incriminating, but I have to be more careful, yes. Thanks for telling me. Steve Crossin (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just the fact you reported yourself, but more of them fact that there has been quite a few mistakes recently and they are all going to add up. I do not think you intentions are bad (as i said, they where mistakes) but you can only make so many mistakes at a time before something has to be done. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know, I've made some mistakes recently. I'm trying to be more careful before I hit the Q button now (Revert and Warn). I don't want to be blocked :( Steve Crossin (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, dont worry, you will not be blocked, though may have rollback or Huggle removed, but those are extreme cases and I do not see it happening. Cheers. Tiptoety talk 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I don't want that to happen either. It would make vandal fighting for me nearly impossible, and it's what I take pride in doing. I just have to slow down. Apologies. I think I'm coming down with a bad case of Editcountitis Steve Crossin (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just keep in mind, its quality over quantity. :) Tiptoety talk 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, I know. 99% of my reverts are correct. It's just that 1%. I have to aim for perfection. The problem is, I can't stop fighting vandalism. I literally cannot stop. I didn't sleep all night because I was fighting vandals (It's 6:40am). So, I believe I truly am obsessed with fighting vandals. Some say it is pointless. I say otherwise. Steve Crossin (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not pointless but it's more important that you get some sleep! And I thought I was getting addicted to WP ..... Best wishes, Qwfp (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOWQ

Dear Sir:

I am NOT vandalizing this page! I am CORRECTING bad information. I was once an OWNING PARTNER of WOWQ. I KNOW its history.

Thank you, John Buhlmer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.74.241 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail.

I've e-mailed you. · AndonicO Hail! 19:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Have you had any more huggle problems? By the way, I'm coming into huggle now, don't go too fast because I'm out of practice. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 14:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accenture edit

I assume you re-added the vandalism by mistake on this edit. Just thought I'd let you know. Please edit carefully. --Rebroad (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

No its not vandalism. I cited my source. Its a bandmembers idea of another musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.249.54 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The diff you are referring to, I reverted for 2 reasons. 1. Because ClueBot (a bot that fights vandalism) reverted your edit, and I would more often agree with a bot, and secondly, because the edit appeared to be vandalism. "He has been noted as saying that "Eric Clapton is a f---ing douchebag!" appeared to be blatant vandalism. After checking the source, the comment above was said. However, I'm not too sure that source is a reliable source. I hope you realise why I reverted the edit, however. We get those sort of edits all the time, by vandals. It's rare those sort of edits are legitimate. Apologies for any mistake I made. Steve Crossin (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note.

Make sure you don't revert back to a different vandalized version when using huggle (such as here). It usually helps to revert back to yourself. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 14:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven_Crossin&oldid=196283989"