Misplaced Pages

User talk:AngelOfSadness: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:50, 24 August 2007 editAngelOfSadness (talk | contribs)21,509 edits Excuse me?: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 18:29, 24 August 2007 edit undoGogo Dodo (talk | contribs)Administrators197,922 edits Blanking own Talk page: ReplyNext edit →
Line 61: Line 61:
Just an FYI, an editor removing comments/warnings from their own Talk page as ] is doing is not vandalism. It's a little uncivil, but you can do it, so you shouldn't revert it. Now his blanking of ]'s Talk page is a different matter entirely. -- ] 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Just an FYI, an editor removing comments/warnings from their own Talk page as ] is doing is not vandalism. It's a little uncivil, but you can do it, so you shouldn't revert it. Now his blanking of ]'s Talk page is a different matter entirely. -- ] 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:I thought it was slightly strange that he blanked it one minute after recieving the warning. If he didn't blank so soon, I would have left it. But since he continued blanking so I left it be as I know nothing gets solved that way and giving him a warning for blanking his own talk page would be as disruptive. I think it's time for bed as I'm falling asleep on my keyboard. Thanks for the reminder which made me remember policies which I had somehow forgotten after my recent vacation. ]] 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) :I thought it was slightly strange that he blanked it one minute after recieving the warning. If he didn't blank so soon, I would have left it. But since he continued blanking so I left it be as I know nothing gets solved that way and giving him a warning for blanking his own talk page would be as disruptive. I think it's time for bed as I'm falling asleep on my keyboard. Thanks for the reminder which made me remember policies which I had somehow forgotten after my recent vacation. ]] 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::Re : No worries. =) It took me awhile to remember that policy change, too. That particular editor was not happy about a previous warning and appeared to be taking it out on the other editor, so I can see why he was continuing to blank his talk page. Anyways, it's a minor thing, so no need to worry about it like I said. -- ] 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


==]== ==]==

Revision as of 18:29, 24 August 2007

Leave me a message here. New messages go underneath old ones. Please sign your posts with ~~~~
Also, any angry and uncivil comments left here will not be replied to and will be deleted.
vn-24This user talk page has been vandalized 24 times.
Archiving icon
Archives

/Archive 1
/Archive 2


user:AngelOfSadness/About Me

Hi there. Hope you don't mind. This page was tagged with a concealed {{speedy}} tag. I was unable to find it, but have removed it by reverting to the last edit made by yourself. --Anthony.bradbury 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. Thanks for finding and removing it. Your edit actually fixed the page back to how it should look :D. AngelOfSadness talk 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes. That was what I intended!!--Anthony.bradbury 22:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahh OK. Thanks again. :D AngelOfSadness talk 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. It's a well planned and attractive page. --Anthony.bradbury 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind comment. I'm glad you think so as when I first created it I didn't know at all what I was doing. But it does look nice because of other editors like yourself making improvements to it which I may not have thought of. Also since it's a subpage, it's never attacked by vandals. They always vandlise the cover of the book which is extremely easy to spot on the RC. AngelOfSadness talk 22:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Also, I had to change your zero-tolerance userbox; the template you used has been elided. But the one i have inserted says the same thing, in perhaps a more striking format. --Anthony.bradbury 23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :D AngelOfSadness talk 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

No problem at all. Cheers! --Ratiocinate 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bioshock change

I removed the information from the bioshock page for 2 specific reasons: A) It was inaccurate, and B) it gave away major game spoilers without any heading, or otherwise. I felt that was unacceptable, and that my actions were justified

You could have just put a spoiler warning in or insert the headings yourself. Deleting mass amounts of content doesn't fix anything especially without an explaination in an edit summary or a disscusion on the talk page. AngelOfSadness talk 21:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Acne Vulgaris change

The second, third fourth and fifth paragraphs of this article should be deleted immediately. The information contained in these paragraphs is completely un-cited. These paragraphs are written sophomorically (in such a way as to be meaningless), contain inaccuracies and factually incorrect material, and serve only to perpetuate confusion on, and misinformation and misunderstanding of, an already too-misunderstood, myth-laden issue.

For example, the statement, "Surface infections are called zits whereas the deeper ones are called pustules" (besides suggesting acne is infectious, which it is not, although a proliferation of a constituent of the normal flora of the skin is involved), makes a useless and meaningless distinction, is incorrect and contradictory. "Zit" is a lay term, that is applied to any acne lesion (as the very first paragraph of the article itself states!), and "pustule" is a medical term, along with "macule", "papule", "nodule" and "cyst", describing various types of dermatological lesions, any of which may be symptomatic of acne. A "pustule", therefore, may be described as a "zit". A "pustule" would be "deeper" (to use the author's word, although, again, it is not the most useful, informative or descriptive) than a "papule" (the red or pinkish inflamed "surface" bumps commonly seen in acne and absent of the visible pus characteristic of a "pustule").

I came to Misplaced Pages as a single source for the latest references and cited material on the issue of acne vulgaris, as I do for many other subjects, and was shocked and horrified to see the inclusion of such blatantly un-cited and anecdotal material in an article that should be anything but. We must not allow this to continue to be the case.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.252.59 (talkcontribs) 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
That's fine but deleting mass amount of content without explaination or discussing it on the talk page does look a lot like vandalism. Nearly half of vandalism edits on[REDACTED] are unexplained(no edit summary or discussion content blanking like what you did here and I would know being an vandalism patroller. But I'm glad you decided to talk to me before deleting the content again. I'm not a contributor of the article itself so I don't know much about it's content.This will mean you might have to wait a few days before getting feedback on it's content from the other editors. All I can say is please be patient and if you don't get a reply, look up the articles edit history and find out who the main editors are. Then post a comment a message of your findings on their talk pages and hopefully they will respond. Happy Editing AngelOfSadness talk 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the anon continued to revert and I have blocked for 24hrs, as per WP:3RR, to stop this disruption and permit other editors to start discussing the discussion thread started. David Ruben 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I was also going to tell him of 3RR but it somehow slipped my mind when writing the above message. Thanks. AngelOfSadness talk 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry - had been repeatedly warned on not continually blanking :-) David Ruben 23:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I know - I gave them a few of the warnings but didn't seem to understand wikipedia's policies so they continued and ended up getting blocked. Hopefully they will use this time to review wikipedia's policies. AngelOfSadness talk 23:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking own Talk page

Just an FYI, an editor removing comments/warnings from their own Talk page as User:Donimus6969 is doing is not vandalism. It's a little uncivil, but you can do it, so you shouldn't revert it. Now his blanking of User:WebHamster's Talk page is a different matter entirely. -- Gogo Dodo 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was slightly strange that he blanked it one minute after recieving the warning. If he didn't blank so soon, I would have left it. But since he continued blanking so I left it be as I know nothing gets solved that way and giving him a warning for blanking his own talk page would be as disruptive. I think it's time for bed as I'm falling asleep on my keyboard. Thanks for the reminder which made me remember policies which I had somehow forgotten after my recent vacation. AngelOfSadness talk 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Re your message: No worries. =) It took me awhile to remember that policy change, too. That particular editor was not happy about a previous warning and appeared to be taking it out on the other editor, so I can see why he was continuing to blank his talk page. Anyways, it's a minor thing, so no need to worry about it like I said. -- Gogo Dodo 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheese and Crackers

Thank you for your template post on this article. This user seems to be related to a blocked public high school for which I am soon to assume responsibility for. I'll let one of the admin know personally. --Amaraiel 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I saw the article was just an opinion on a "skater DVD" or something. I had know idea that this user had caused so much trouble before. Thanks in advance for letting an admin know about the current situation regarding this user AngelOfSadness talk 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

One of my sons were playing with the computer of my friend, we are visiting him, please acknowledge this notification, it will no happen next time, thank you. -74.64.0.115 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine seeing as it wasn't yourself. I'm glad you decided to talk to me regarding the warning. Happy Editing AngelOfSadness talk 14:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me?

I'd like to know why you gave me a warning for vandalism. If you look, you can see that Luisdile02 "vandalised" my page by adding the message "I love you lots <3". I saw this as just a friendly bit of messing, so I added a reply to his page. I really don't think it was fair to punish me. Please reply. 667er 15:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone vandalises your userpage, you are supposed to revert it,give them a warning and do nothing else. Vandalising their userpage is still vandalism and will be treated as so. Even if it was a joke, it is still seen by other editors as userpage vandalism which is a huge no-no at wikipedia. Vandalism is vandalism and a lot of vandalism edits are considered "jokes" by the editors who do them but they are still punished. I'm not the maker of the rules, I just enforce them. AngelOfSadness talk 15:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I reverted the vandalism off your userpage and gave the editor a warning so everyone is being punished the same. Happy Editing AngelOfSadness talk 15:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
User talk:AngelOfSadness: Difference between revisions Add topic