User talk:24.21.189.185

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your recent edit to Dan Brown was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 04:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to 2006 FIFA World Cup. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I'm sorry, but I misspoke. You removed content from 2006 FIFA World Cup, as seen here, and have reflected that in my new message, seen above. Two different opinions of the Groups of Death were shared (one by the Guardian, and the other by FOX Sports), and two opinions on which group was the group of death. The Guardian selected Group C as the group of death for World Cup 2006, whilst FOX Sports selected Group E as the group of death. You removed Group C in its entirety from the article. Do you believe that the Guardian is not a credible source? Both groups have been mentioned as a group of death in the articles cited. I reverted your changes because of this fact. If you have further questions, leave a note on my talk page. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Further apologies should be given. I see now where I erred, and understand your edit. However, I must disagree with your statements.
"One group is traditionally designated and in 2006 I firmly believe you will see Group E referred to by that moniker." I quote from group of death: Sometimes the term simply means the group with the strongest teams, implying there is always precisely one such group; other definitions allow for multiple groups of death, and for none at all. Since both (C/E) have been suggested as the group, or one of a few groups of death, it was relevant to include both. A quick Google search for "group of death" "group e" "world cup 2006" and a similiar one for Group C yields in favor of Group C: 900+ to 600+ results.
What I don't understand is why, out of thousands (more?) of edits on Wikipedia per day, my edit of one sentence was questioned and reversed by an administrator. What happens to the concept of Wikipedia if *reasonable* user edits are accorded so little weight? Thanks for your time. As for a response to that:
First of all, I'd like to mention that I'm not an administrator (though I'd like to be). Any user can revert changes made to an article, not only administrators. As for the second part, why a seemingly inconsequential edit is reverted. Personally, I base whether or not an edit is "good" or not on a loose set of criterion. The first is if any useful information has been added. If so, then it is most likely a good edit. If content is, removed, I start thinking it is vandalism. I look at the edit summary, and the user who made the edit. If it is an annonymous user, I am more likely to think vandalism, as a good majority of vandalism is done by anonymous editors (take a look at the block log). And if there's no edit summary explaining a user's actions, I further lean towards vandalism. I concluded your edit vandalism, as you didn't remove the accompanying link that supported Group C as a group of death. Also, your account recently had been warned by a vandalism-watching bot just a week before. Seeing the history of the IP, I decided to warn you for vandalism. However, this would not have been a factor, had you registered for an account, as your unique user ID would prevent anyone else from harming your record. You would be responsible for your own actions. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? for more information.
If you want to take this conversation to the talk page of the 2006 World Cup article, and see what other people think, we can see if I was just a fool for reverting this edit. Sorry for the long, rambling collection of thoughts, and thanks for your time here on Wikipedia, and I encourage you to register! If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page again. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 06:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I apparently did not go about it in an approved way, at least according to the "bot" life form. Perhaps humans need to monitor them rather than the other way around eh?
As for this statement, I have no response. Apparently, some editors have found that writing a bot program is easier for doing mundane tasks such as reverting vandalism. Maybe more human input is needed when reverting vandalism, but I am not the judge of that. I seriously suggest you get an account, as I think that you would make a great editor. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)