User talk:DougsTech
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Username
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy for the following reason: appears to be promotional. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?
I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.
You have several options freely available to you:
- If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
- If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
- You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.
Thank you. Tiptoety talk 23:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tiptoety! My username is the username I use for most all my online accounts. I have long ties to this user name for many years. I see no reason why you would consider removing or changing it...
- Okay, but please understand that if you make promotional edits for DougsTech.com like you did here you will be blocked. Tiptoety talk 23:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tiptoety! I make edits and sign them with my email address and domain name for contact...and knowledge verification purposes only.
- I am not referring to your signature, as that already appears to be taken care of below (much appreciated!), but instead to your edits where you promoted DougsTech.com by adding their (or your) URL to your userspace. I am simply notifying you that if you can not place spam links withing anywhere in wikipedia, even on your own userpage. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your Signature
Hi, and thanks for your hard work cleaning up vandalism. Just a thought but you might wish to consider removing your e-mail address from your signature - SPAm and all that. Pedro : Chat 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Pedro! I will take care of that right away!
[edit] JJ
I got the JJ article semi protected, i hate ips lol. Realist2 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dom Turner
Hey Dougs. I don't mind revision of my edits but it's not like I'm new to wikipedia. Check my contribs if you like. As far as notable instruments go in this article, in what way is my edit "not constructive"? The box is there in the template and the instruments are of interest. I can provide refrences if you like as Dom Turner acknowledges the use of those particular guitars both at his web sites and on the liner notes to his albums. I'm not trying to argue the point, would just like to get your views. I await your response before reverting edits. Cheers Darrell Wheeler (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I usually revert obvious edits, your edit may have been wronfully categorized as vandalism. If this is the case, I apoligize. I have added you to my whitelist.
[edit] Thanks for removing vandalism
Thanks for removing vandalism in Charge_Control. Davide Andrea (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem! Thanks what i'm here for!
[edit] The Williams School
GSA really does stand for Gay-Straight Alliance... :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that! We have a lot of users vandalizing the site with the usage of "gay". It triggered my blacklist.
[edit] Owen Roe O'Sullivan
I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I looked up Owen Roe O Sullivan and saw that the article was almost a stub and contained incorrect information, and that more information was requested. I spent a lot of time writing and referencing a good long, sourced article about one of the great Irish poets, and you reverted it to the original, incorrect stub apparently because I am not acquainted with all of Wikipedia's conventions. That sort of deletion is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Moreover, I wrote one of the quotations in the "stub" myself and it was misattributed. You now have reverted it to the incorrect version.
Which is more important: free information, or encyclopedic knowledge of Wikipedia style? I consider your revert to be vandalism.
I don't suppose I would be tempted to write many more articles for Wikipedia at this rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangeline (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes mistakes happen. And, it appears this time one happened. My apologies!
[edit] Hi
Excuse me, you should be careful of what your reverting as with this edit] and afterwards you accused a potentially good contributor of vandalism using a warning template, I think an apology is in order. The Dominator (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sometimes mistakes happen. And, it appears this time one happened. My apologies!
[edit] Hey...
I just want to say: change the genre from numetal and I'm going to take it to the admins. This is established and has been for a long, long time.
You would not believe how mad this made me -- my face is red with anger right now. Serious, don't change it nigger. 74.245.150.36 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you want to get banned from Wikipedia? Use another racial slur, and you will be. Take that to the admins.
[edit] what?
What are you talking about? --Blechnic (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I haven't been talking?
[edit] It appears that you are a vandal
By all appearances you, yourself, are vandalizing Marine bacteriophage. It is unintentional I am sure but you are mistakenly assuming that good edits are vandalism and so you are removing those good edits. I strongly recommend that you leave the article and User:Blechnic alone. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that you have not read the admin board. This is no longer an issue.DougsTech (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Resolved.By parties involved. The appropriate way. Every one else should just step away. Thank you. --Blechnic (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I actually have a lingering concern from reading that discussion. You have a blacklist of people you've reverted? As in, someone who you revert can never talk to you on your talk page? That's a bad idea. Wikis are made through discussion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thats not it at all. I only check edits from IPs, or newly registered users. My blacklist is all the people that I have reverted. If they edit again, they are automattically put to the top of my list to check.
[edit] Nicole Scherzinger?
"Hi, the recent edit you made to Nicole Scherzinger 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. DougsTech (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"
- Hi, I actually did not make that edit, It appears someone else did. --203.34.37.64 (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Are you an admin?=
Regardless, and respectfully id suggest that just being an IP or new, should not be an auto blacklist. Your deletion of 'society of singers' update allowed several gross errors to remain. I recommend you read the talk page, and visit their website, and you will see the additions i made corrected the page with facts. Automatic and cursory actions, especially when not applicable to your stated anti vandalism campaign, can cause more harm when applied improperly, which i can clearly see by your postings though it may ocurr, is not your intent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.212.172 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Children's rights
Hey Doug, thanks for your previous attention to the article on children's rights. I'm looking for someone elses' attention for the article who knows about vandalism and POV. The anon editor who you earlier cited for their apparently malicious edits to the article has not let up, despite my own best efforts to placate their interest. Can you take a look at their edits and let me know if they constitute a need for RfC or otherwise, because I'm pretty sure they're POV, but I'm just not sure. Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, Im no admin, but I will issue them a higher warning. And if it continues, I will report them for admin intervention.
[edit] Your armed with vandal proof
Saw on your user page your armed with vandal proof. I think then it would be a good idea to remove yourself from this list here How are you finding it, just wanted to ask. Is it easy to use? By the way it states on the page you should have been actively editing for more than a month. You've been on for around 2 weeks. I know you have made an incredible amount of edits in that time, superhuman really. You must live on the computer:) Thanks, good luck Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] So yeah, just be careful
Don't know if you saw the message I left on your Talk page yesterday but then retracted. In any case, yeah, just be careful. I still have some concerns. I spent about two minutes looking at your contribs and found another erroneous revert that should not have just been reverted on sight (not every time content is removed is it inappropriate). We all make these sorts of mistakes, but I'm a little worried since Blechnic's changes didn't have a whole lot of vandal red flags IMO, and since I found another error so quickly when I checked your contribs. Just, you know, be careful... Most of what you do seems to be great work, though! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, DougsTech! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 04:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
