User:Sharkface217/screwups

'''As I am human, I sometimes make mistakes. This page is used to catalogue any mistakes I make here on Wikipedia. Feel free to add some of my mistakes that you observe but are not yet up here. Please do not vandalize this page.'''

Experiments
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Academic Challenger 00:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

''' Found here. '''
 * This is a warning I received when I did some sort of vandalism (hopefully unintentionally; I honestly don't remember) back in 2005. Now, some of you might think I had reformed......  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  09:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Nacon kantari 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

''' Found here.
 * But sadly that was not the case. This is my first real block. I received it over my awarding of too many barnstars.

Blocked
I have blocked you for your spamming. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some users have been asking me to lift the block. I most likely will. However, keep in mind that this is second block for posting messages on user talk pages that seem to be spamming. This is what we call vote stacking and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. In order to accomplish your goal (from what you are doing), use consensus and not spam or bribe anyone. Deal? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree to your terms. In fact, I just emailed you my appeal. I do fully apologize for my votestacking/canvassing/campaigning. I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy on those matters at the time. Again, I am sorry and I hope to amend the error of my ways (firstly, by going through Wikipedia's official policy). Sharkface217 06:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sharkface. I've just noticed the message that you got caught canvassing for votes for WP:ACOTF. As the main coordinator for that, I don't really mind why people vote. What I care about is that people who vote are prepared to contribute if their preference comes up. Some of the highest-voted articles end up with virtually no edits at all when selected, yet others catch people's interest and get significant improvements. I think the main thing is actually to have a champion for the article during it's time at ACOTF - someone needs to set up a to-do list, a framework, and maintain an interest. I helped to trim out the excessive templates and establish a framework based on the few sentences that were there, but someone else needs to do the rest - probably you. --Scott Davis Talk 08:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO this block was directly contrary to WP:AGF. I too have asked Zscout370 to reduce the block. An indef block is completely unnecessary for a a productive editor who is unaware of policy. At the very least he could have left you a warning first. - Mike | Talk 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Found here
 * I accidentally broke WP:SPAM by canvassing for United States-Australia Relations. My ignorance of the rules is no excuse, however; it is expected that every Wikipedian who wishes to contribute to this project in a meaningful way has read the guidelines of Wikipedia, of which WP:SPAM is a major one. I am stronger today from this Wikipedia experience than from any other on this site.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  09:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

taking liberties with db-nonsense
Could you please justify your actions here? I am amazed... - crz crztalk 04:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Found here
 * It seems like I made this mistake only yesterday. I must have been rushing while tagging articles for deletion and combating vandalism. I'm not sure why I tagged this page, but I did and I regret it fully now. My apologies to Kenny Price and Crz.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  08:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pentagon Precollapse picture - removed from The Pentagon
Hi, you reverted my last edit at The Pentagon, and labeled my edit as vandalism. First of all, please assume good faith. Second of all, i'm baffled at why you think my edit was vandalism. I started a talk page header, please respond there instead of here or on my talk page. Fresheneesz 19:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Found here


 * I accidentally deleted a picture from The Pentagon because I mistook it for vandalism. This is proof that even I make mistakes while patrolling.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

April 2008
The following are April 2008 mistakes during extensive vandal fighting sessions. -- Sharkface T/C

Hi, the recent edit you made to Gewehr 98 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. SharkfaceT/C 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, my bad. Pressed the wrong button while vandal fighthing. My apologies. --SharkfaceT/C 02:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism on the Joe Swanberg page, and you reverted it back, calling my edit unconstructive. I'm 99.9% certain that Swanberg's next film is _not_ called "Sucking a Big Dick". It is obvious vandalism. I'm reverting it again. Anonymoustom (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's alright, Sharkface-- sorry if I came across a little strong there. Kudos for fighting vandals-- it's a good and important cause.Anonymoustom (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the recent edit you made to Chinese tea 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. Sharkface T/C 04:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wrong! Before you hyperactively revert next time, please check! 76.165.224.17 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry about that. -- Sharkface T/C 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Apocalypse Cow
Just a heads up, be careful about using rollback to revert good faith edits, those edits weren't vandalism. The DominatorTalkEdits 03:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops... my mistake. -- Sharkface T/C 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)