793:
was in good faith when he had it first reverted by yourself, then after modifying it, another editor "undid" him with no explanation. So there I was thinking this is a nonconstructive editor. On that note, I have to say that as things stand, an explanation is required somewhere by the editor who reverted without using summary. Obviously misuse of rollback will result in its removal, this cannot be done on someone who doesn't have rollback but the offence of undoing without summary is just as bad. I hope you know where I'm coming from now. --
437:
401:
191:. If there is a mish-mash of constructive and nonconstructive edits by one successive account, then it must not be used here as any vandalism must be adjusted manually. Although I could revert edits in my own user space, I still would not do this if I assumed good faith. If wrong, I would just undo+explain. Obviously there is a lot to say about it so I won't recite the entire page but I hope you are convinced that I am able to use it properly. --
677:
631:
792:
Thank you very much for the alert. I've annulled my own action by way of recompence. In all honesty, I am not party to either of the revisions and I have no knowledge in that area of Middle
Eastern affairs (I'm not that much into politics anyhow) but I followed the edits, realised Garden Mixer's edit
410:
Same as it is to you. You two have been at each other's throats for some time now. Either you both stop edit-warring or I will report the pair of you, then see if there is a relationship between me and anyone. In the meantime, there is no vandalism, all I see is content dispute and no I have not read
129:
and making the content arguments you made at the admin noticeboard. Explain your reasoning, provide sources if able and then if nobody responds make the edit again and in the edit summary link to the talk page. If people do respond then try to come to a consensus and respect that consensus regardless
425:
He was warned about his edits last night. We agreed on a compromise. He has now gone back on that agreement by replacing the inappropriate text (his was the last edit last night). How are you supposed to discuss something with someone who then disregards something that had been agreed by discussion?
219:
Sounds great, I have given you the rollback tool. You described the expected usage well, the key is that it should only be used when communication is not needed and to follow up with communication if it is used when communication is needed. This tool is given easily and it is removed easily. Have a
88:
Well there is something you don't know. I never meant to continue the closed discussion, I typed my retort very quickly and discovered the edit conflict loop, so I cut and pasted before realising. I have never known something closed so quickly on such scanty reasoning when you know very well had I
31:
Hi, thanks for the revert of my talk page, the section is question is a section i invite others to update when they revert vandalism on my user or talk page so the edit was welcome. I hadn't had chance to check what they reverted but as they dont appear to have removed any vandalism it was still a
183:
reverting once or twice. I first read
Rollback before my first application, I have just been reading it again so to summarise: one click does all, one can always roll himself back with no fear of breach, the action is irreversible therefore if it was correct to revert but not to use rollback (e.g
182:
Thanks. Well with the subject closed I cannot add anything to it now. I don't fear
Boomerang (as mentioned on David Gerard's talk page) because I believe I had edited in good faith since my arrival, but yes I made mistakes. Those have all been rectified with me frequently having desisted, even if
75:
Please don't continue a discussion that has been closed. Regarding your content concerns, please use the article talk page to explain your past or proposed edits. Edit summaries aren't for discussion; they are just a means to summarize what you have done. If something needs explaining, use the
111:
I have encountered the software not warning me that the page has changed since I clicked edit, I have even had my edits clobber someone else's. The software does have bugs in it that allow this sort of innocent mistake to happen so I think it is reasonable to take Boy's explaination at face
593:
Hello, your username may give the impression that you're using
Knowledge as a dating website, which obviously would be inappropriate. Just imagine how a new female editor might feel if they're welcomed to Knowledge by "Boy Seeks Girl Tonight" - that sound as if you had a little more than
526:
eligible for db-a7 deletion if it is a party that was just formed this month and for which "spokespersons or officials for the party are unknown". The party has not yet even collected the necessary signatures to appear on any ballot. This is a classic case of a non-notable organization.
168:
and make a statement that demonstrates your understanding and acceptance of its acceptable use I will gladly give you the rollback right. Also if you did misuse the rollback we would probably not block you for that(unless it was edit warring), we would just take it away.
252:
Another good rule of thumb which if followed will keep you out of 99 percent of trouble on
Knowledge: don't repeat a disputed action. If you do something and somebody objects, stop and discuss it until the path forward is clear. good luck and happy editing.
355:
And yes, all
Shookenlover did was paste verbatim a big chunk from the article (the career section) into the lede. As I said, people don't need to read the same big chunk of text twice in a relatively short
303:
The lede is everything before the contents, not just the first para. You don't simply copy and paste a large chunk of the article into the lede. People don't need to read the same big chunk of text twice.
231:
Very much obliged, I don't feel such a "rejected" user now! :) The key is, "if in doubt, don't!". Nobody is charged with not using it if they had the right to! :) Enjoy the rest of your day. --
518:
saying "it's a political party, not a corporation". If you had read the template that was affixed, you'd have noted it read "an article about a company, corporation
346:
First the info that
Shookenlover pasted from the main article is unsourced in the lede. If it is going to be in the lede, the refs should be there, in the lede.
563:
696:
695:, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found
143:
This is our standard procedure for content disputes, our noticeboards would be overloaded if people did not work these things out for themselves.
387:
Shookenlover has been told why his edits are inappropriate. He persists and so it amounts to vandalism. 3RR does not apply to fixing vandalism.
559:
426:
This user also seems to know a lot about how
Knowledge works for someone so recently joined. Do you not suspect sockpuppetry on that basis?
187:), then a dummy/minor edit should follow ASAP explaining revert and apologising for accidental click. The kind of edit where it is due is
595:
798:
17:
759:
646:
618:
456:
416:
333:
278:
236:
196:
94:
60:
740:
534:
89:
performed those same edits five minutes after achieving rollback, I would be without it - possibly blocked from editing too. --
727:
is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.
594:
collaborative editing in mind. To avoid any such issues it may be a good precaution to choose a less suggestive username via
556:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
45:
494:
430:
394:
369:
308:
126:
744:
365:
Shookelover's actions were unhelpful (as have been all of his edits so far) and that is why they are being reverted.
319:
I cannot see what is being "pasted". All I see is a set of conflicting summaries, one claiming the info is unsourced
794:
613:
Noted, it is the next thing I will get onto after I have completed an edit. So in the next few hours hopefully. --
755:
754:
I used blogs to give to support the content, but the book itself should count as reliable if I link it across. --
642:
614:
452:
412:
329:
274:
232:
192:
90:
56:
436:
400:
313:
390:
I'd also be interested in your comments about what, if any, relationship you have to
Shookenlover. Thank you.
548:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
684:
724:
549:
515:
32:
good revert. If your interested in countering vandalism on
Knowledge I would suggest a trip over to the
802:
786:
763:
748:
665:
650:
622:
607:
583:
538:
498:
460:
440:
420:
404:
374:
337:
282:
257:
240:
226:
200:
175:
149:
98:
80:
64:
49:
782:
704:
553:
482:
736:
486:
700:
165:
41:
76:
article talk page (or editor talk page) to explain yourself fully and allow room for replies.
579:
490:
221:
170:
144:
273:
I think I know what you mean, I'll take that into consideration with future contributions. --
720:
716:
638:
778:
688:
728:
692:
661:
603:
528:
254:
77:
33:
570:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
37:
451:
history to see if anyone else has tried in the past to make similar edits to his. --
575:
571:
475:
Thanks for the warm welcome! Do you know if anyone has looked at my article yet?
723:
about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The
657:
599:
448:
676:
447:
Yes, very possibly he is not as "new" as he makes out. I'll check the
328:. I am finished with that article as I am not qualified to comment. --
774:
Psst... you used rollback to revert something in a content dispute.
36:
for tips advice and guidance form some experienced counter vandals.
712:
708:
675:
411:
any sources. That is for you to discuss with each other. --
125:
Regarding the underlying issue please consider going to
775:
552:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
511:
326:
323:
320:
188:
184:
777:
For some bizarre reason you're not allowed to do that.
719:
walks through editing step by step. We also provide
322:, then one saying "too much information for lede"
544:Disambiguation link notification for March 13
8:
522:" (emphasis added). Yes, political parties
707:to easily format references based on the
325:, then one saying that the is "pasted"
7:
514:the speedy deletion nomination of
24:
18:User talk:The Fat Rat of Chepstow
629:
435:
399:
656:Thanks for your understanding.
383:3RR does not apply to vandalism
1:
689:high-quality reliable sources
375:19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
338:19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
314:18:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
283:18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
258:02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
241:21:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
227:20:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
201:20:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
176:19:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
150:19:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
127:Talk:Love Will Tear Us Apart
99:19:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
81:19:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
65:18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
50:18:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
596:WP:Changing username/Simple
819:
803:18:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
787:14:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
764:18:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
749:17:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
666:21:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
651:18:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
623:17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
608:13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
584:09:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
539:04:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
472:Hi Boy Seek Girl Tonight,
770:Incorrect use of Rollback
499:03:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
461:20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
441:20:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
421:20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
405:20:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
185:in this case if I used it
34:Counter vandalism academy
685:evidence-based medicine
680:
55:OK thanks for that. --
683:We at Knowledge love
679:
298:
164:Also if you can read
572:opt-out instructions
554:Elections in Ireland
691:. We typically use
681:
562:• Join us at the
550:Solidarity Ireland
516:Solidarity Ireland
478:Thanks, TWB 1934
432:Let us have speaks
396:Let us have speaks
371:Let us have speaks
310:Let us have speaks
567:
502:
485:comment added by
299:Brendan O'Carroll
71:Discussion closed
810:
733:
637:
633:
632:
557:
531:
501:
479:
439:
433:
429:
403:
397:
393:
372:
368:
311:
307:
818:
817:
813:
812:
811:
809:
808:
807:
772:
729:
703:has a build in
693:review articles
674:
630:
628:
591:
564:DPL WikiProject
546:
537:
529:
520:or organization
508:
506:Declined speedy
480:
431:
427:
395:
391:
385:
370:
366:
309:
305:
301:
130:of its outcome.
73:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
816:
814:
806:
805:
771:
768:
767:
766:
687:. Please cite
673:
670:
669:
668:
626:
625:
590:
587:
545:
542:
533:
507:
504:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
384:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
360:
359:
358:
357:
350:
349:
348:
347:
341:
340:
300:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
136:
135:
134:
133:
132:
131:
118:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
104:
103:
102:
101:
72:
69:
68:
67:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
815:
804:
800:
796:
791:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
732:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:citation tool
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
678:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
654:
653:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
609:
605:
601:
597:
588:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
568:
565:
561:
555:
551:
543:
541:
540:
536:
532:
525:
521:
517:
513:
505:
503:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
476:
473:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
409:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
388:
382:
376:
373:
364:
363:
362:
361:
354:
353:
352:
351:
345:
344:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
321:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
284:
280:
276:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
256:
242:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
225:
224:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
173:
167:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
158:
151:
148:
147:
142:
141:
140:
139:
138:
137:
128:
124:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
110:
109:
108:
107:
106:
105:
100:
96:
92:
87:
86:
85:
84:
83:
82:
79:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:
52:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
26:
19:
773:
730:
725:welcome page
721:style advice
682:
634:
627:
592:
569:
547:
523:
519:
509:
481:— Preceding
477:
474:
471:
389:
386:
302:
251:
222:
171:
145:
74:
30:
166:WP:ROLLBACK
27:My userpage
779:Bosstopher
672:References
574:. Thanks,
220:nice day.
731:Doc James
717:WP:MEDHOW
558:Read the
530:WikiDan61
255:Jehochman
78:Jehochman
741:contribs
701:edit box
589:Username
535:ReadMe!!
512:declined
495:contribs
483:unsigned
449:Coffee 1
356:article.
38:Amortias
795:FAT RAT
576:DPL bot
487:Twb1934
223:Chillum
172:Chillum
146:Chillum
756:!BSGT!
699:. The
643:!BSGT!
615:!BSGT!
453:!BSGT!
428:Harry
413:!BSGT!
392:Harry
367:Harry
330:!BSGT!
306:Harry
275:!BSGT!
233:!BSGT!
193:!BSGT!
112:value.
91:!BSGT!
57:!BSGT!
745:email
16:<
799:talk
783:talk
760:talk
737:talk
713:ISBN
709:PMID
697:here
662:talk
658:Huon
647:talk
639:Here
635:Done
619:talk
604:talk
600:Huon
580:talk
510:You
491:talk
457:talk
417:talk
334:talk
279:talk
237:talk
197:talk
189:here
95:talk
61:talk
711:or
560:FAQ
524:are
801:)
785:)
762:)
747:)
743:·
739:·
715:.
664:)
649:)
641:.
621:)
606:)
598:.
582:)
497:)
493:•
459:)
419:)
336:)
281:)
239:)
199:)
97:)
63:)
48:)
44:)(
797:(
781:(
758:(
735:(
660:(
645:(
617:(
602:(
578:(
566:.
489:(
455:(
415:(
332:(
277:(
235:(
195:(
93:(
59:(
46:C
42:T
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.