User talk:76.118.216.61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please keep your language civil. Swearing unnecessarily is inappropriate, disruptive, and could lead to your contributions being misunderstood as vandalism, bad-faith editing, or something else. I presume you intend to contribute positively, and would hope that this suggestion will help keep your contributions positive. --Cheeser1 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

that is vandalism. user is anonymous. why bother ? just undo it PalX 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It was NOT vandalism. Some douche put "O'Connor writes:" without ever explaining who O'Connor is and why what s/he write matters. That, or someone put it in and explained who O'Connor is, but the explanation was later removed by some random idiot. 76.118.216.61 19:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Regarding your edits to The Post-Modern Prometheus:

Your recent edit to The Post-Modern Prometheus (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

stupid bots 76.118.216.61 19:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Heath Ledger has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Snowolf How can I help? 01:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ash Ketchum‎. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Ash Ketchum, you will be blocked from editing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn I replied to the previous "warning", but maybe I forgot to hit submit. Anyway, what the FUCK are you talking about dude? My edits were not, in ANY WAY, vandalism. If you are going to give these "warnings" at least explain what part of my edits, in which I merely corrected your informational and grammatical errors, is supposed to be vandalism.
Hi there. I took a look at this situation, and I've left notes for Sesshomaru and MelicansMatkin stating that I don't think you were vandalizing that article. It appeared to be an edit war, and I think that instead of continually reverting each other, you should probably continue the debate in Talk:Ash Ketchum - I didn't see a discussion there about his role. Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 76.118.216.61

Can you help keep an eye on 76.118.216.61 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and revert this anon's vandalism? I don't know what (s)he has against me; this person keeps reverting all of my helpful edits on Ash Ketchum for basically nothing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing personal against Sess, the issue here is that his or her edits are grammatically and factually incorrect. Ash is NOT the main protagonist of the entire franchise, only the anime and certain manga. Red is the ONLY protagonist of Red and Blue, so specifying the "male protagonist" was unnecessary. If you actually examine my edits[1][2][3], I am not just blankly reverting his or her edits, I am also tweaking and tailoring things to read accurately. This last time[4] I AM reverting him or her directly, though, because HE OR SHE blindly reverted ME[5] without even bothering to see in what ways I might have improved the article. He or she keeps leaving vandalism warnings on my talk page, but has failed to explain how rephrasing things and correcting minor informational issues constitutes vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.216.61 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm taking a look over the history here as well, and I have to agree with the IP user: What he was doing was not vandalism. Sesshomaru and the IP have differing points of view on Ash's role, and they got into an edit war, but I saw no evidence of vandalism from either party. At worst, it would be a case of POV pushing and ignoring consensus on either part, and more likely it's simply a lack of consensus, considering that there has not been a proper discussion on the article's talk page. (If there was a discussion elsewhere, or it was archived, please point me to it, and ensure that everyone involved in this dispute is aware of it.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any vandalism happening here; as KieferSkunk said, it looks like it's just a difference in opinion on how to word the lead. Please be aware, however, that this appears to have become an edit war, and I believe that you both may have violated the three-revert rule. Instead of edit warring, why not take it to the talk page where you can have a proper discussion? MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Your recent edit to Hank Steinbrenner (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Hank Steinbrenner (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Hank Steinbrenner (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)