Template:Vandalcount

Any references on this page will appear here:

Hi Jeff, you notified my IP address talk page of possible vandalism in this edit, [[1]]. Since I was not the user who did this, it was possibly another member of the family, I'm not the one to blame. Yet, I'd still like to clear my name. The edit was merely deleting irrevelant items from the list or relevent people. For example, Ajit Kulkarni, Pratibha Industries; * Mohan Digambar Shirolikar, Lifestyles International, Founder of Shreejal Coconut Water Redefined: A revolutionary, low cost and affordable energizing health drink.

This is clearly advertising. Please reconsider your accusation.

Kindest Regards, Jay Storms991 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are those people whose names you deleted not Deshastha Brahmins in Industry? Please explain your deletions in future. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page you accused me of "attacking" an editor. Please explain exactly which words I wrote constitute an "attack" on him. I would ignore this, but you have threatened to block me for this infraction, so I need to know what it is you are talking about. Since he actually apologised for his original mistake, and deleted both his original sneer at me and my response, why are you making an issue about this? Barsoomian (talk) 02:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the exact word that constitutes an attack is "idiot," personally. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except the word "idiot" was referring to the anonymous IP edits that both of us were reverting, not to the editor in question. Barsoomian (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. In other words, this is a case of, "Move along, nothing to see here?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would "move along" except apparently I'm under a "Level 2 warning". I need to have this either rescinded or explained in detail. Barsoomian (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You referred to unnamed third party editors as "idiots", a prohibited attack on their their intelligence, rather than as "vandals", an allowed description based on their actions. You went on to accuse Sintaku (talk · contribs) of automatically reverting your work without using their own brain, when in fact they used huggle, a semi-automatic tool, and of making patronising remarks on your talk page, which were actually written by Gurch (talk · contribs) based on the work of the User Warnings WikiProject. You also broke {{Infobox Primeval Creature}} with this edit, edited an archive with this unsigned post, and broke {{zh-stp}} spellings with this edit.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "You referred to unnamed third party editors as "idiots""" -- You accused me of making "personal attacks" That was NOT a personal attack on anyone. A personal attack has to name a person, these were unspecified anonymous IPs. And I am far more offended to being described as a "vandal" than an "idiot", which is why I was angry. "Idiots" can make mistakes but be well-intentioned. A vandal is malicious. I do not accept your interpretation of these words.
• "making patronising remarks on your talk page" -- What? How about what I was responding to: "You may also wish to read the introduction to editing." How patronising is that? How about "have removed content from the page without explanation" which was UNTRUE. Anyway, when did "making patronising remarks" become a capital offence?
• "without using their own brain, when in fact they used huggle," -- Yes, exactly. Using an automated tool is NOT using your own brain. That's true by definition. This "tool" did not detect the original vandalism the day before, but raised a bogus alarm at my remedying them. I do not accept that it absolves the user of responsibility to understand the context before taking action and accusing people of destructive editing and leaving patronising and accusatory messages.
• "You also broke {{Infobox Primeval Creature}} with this edit " -- NO I DID NOT. How can you so carelessly make such an accusation? That edit was halfway through my FIXING that error after it had been vandalised. TWO MINUTES LATER I had worked out what was wrong and reverted it completely. In fact I have been repairing similar mistakes and bad information on that and associated pages for months. You are making the same mistake Sintaku did when he accused me of vandalism, confusing a reversion with a new edit. Look at the history of the page.
• "edited an archive with this unsigned post, " -- which I reverted one minute later after realising it was a mistake.
• "and broke {{zh-stp}} spellings with this edit. " -- That was a mistake I was unaware of. Encoding error of some kind. I was only trying to correct the English spelling.
• -- Anyway, you seem to be very determined to nail me. You've gone and trolled through my history looking for problems to throw at me, completely unrelated to the original complaint. The worst you could find were some unwise edits that I immediately reverted, and a technical error due to my text editor choking on Chinese. Just what are you trying to prove? That I'm an idiot/vandal/scumbag? Or what? How about some acknowledgement that Sintaku was COMPLETELY WRONG to accuse me of vandalism (which he apologised for, of course, before you rushed in to take up cudgels on his behalf). Whatever happened to assuming good faith? -- Barsoomian (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't bothered to reply in the last week since you used your Huggle bot to try to find some dirt on me and made these trivial and/or incorrect accusations against me. I'm sure you think that you're infallible and don't need to explain, let alone apologise. You spend so much time whacking vandals that you think that anyone who conflicts with you must be one. You're wrong.-- Barsoomian (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rescinded your "Level 2 warning", and I am sorry that I took so long to do so.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No hard feelings. Barsoomian (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you two want to have a conversation, that's fine, but you should go do it on your own pages. This is Jeff's talk page, and he does'nt need to get involved with your pety bickering. 68.218.222.8 (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, it's better to leave this conversation here to reduce fragmentation.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you;ll find that i have not vandalised anything, i was merely removing information which was inaccurate and out of date and therefore served no purpose --Ldyajmf (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which material was "inaccurate and out of date"? Can we verify that it is no longer accurate or that it is out of date with a current reliable source? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not validising Why should i get banend for speaking the turth

http://inanetalk.com/smf/index.php?topic=1567.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.224.55 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is not a reliable source.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but do you agree that the creator os serenity and firefly have plagarised ? to many simialrities?

please help me. how do i prove on wikiepdia that the plgarism is in fact true and then save it there forever without somone removing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.224.55 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can either prove it to someone who can get the claims published by a reliable source, or get the publisher of the infringed work to sue for copyright infringement, and get a report of the lawsuit published by a reliable source. Sorry, but you can't use original research on Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar imagery isn't always plaigiarism. It could well be a deliberate homage- artists refer to one anothers' works all the time in various ways. It could be purely coincidence- imagery does tend to occur to more than one person independently. Kind of hard to tell with no reliable sources, and even if this is a reference to another work, a list of allusions in Joss Whedon television would probably be overlong and not particularly encyclopedic. Personally, I like all the 'Batman' references in his 'Angel' series. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to figure out why you reverted User:Berkeley@gmail.com addition of the two photos. I didn't see anything that matched the warning you gave him of vandalism on that. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit added a link to a self-published page about the subject of our article, which is not a reliable source. This other edit removed content without explanation.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but you reverted a group at once to correct those instead of the specific edits, and removed two photos that were added by him as well in the process. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the reversions. The photos are back.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for reverting Grouchstink on Stefano DiMera. This user needs a full review of contribution history and possibly significant reverts on most of the pages, but I'm using a borrowed PC that's way to slow to run Twinkle at the moment, can you assist? If not I'll try to revisit in 24 hours. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, I can't run Twinkle right now either, and I'm about to hit the sack.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll check it again tonight. Chuckiesdad (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I think this is more or less done, and I left L3 warning on user page. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has an infobox, so I deleted the template which said it had one. No vandalism on my part! The muffin is not subtle (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally providing an explanation. Please ensure that your signature bears some resemblance to your username.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this case it was rather obvious what she was doing, if you looked into it. I know it's easy to get carried away while vandal-fighting, and we appreciate your work - but a double-check of contribution history can prevent any bad blood forming in discussions like this. I have informed Panyd about her signature and WP:SIG, it's not an absolute rule and it's meant in good faith, so I can't see any problem with it. Thanks for bringing it up though, you meant well :-) Regards, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, on second thought, you're right, and I'm sorry.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for reverting vandalism to my page! LovesMacs (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]