User talk:Abasteraster

Welcome!
 Hi Abasteraster! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism – if you'd like to get more involved, you may want to check out the WikiLoop Double Check anti-vandalism tool or enroll in the Counter-Vandalism Unit's training academy.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing!   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Edits
What exactly was the reason you reverted those accurate good faith valid edits on the Seminary article, with no explanation? Was it because of "I don't like"? You forget that Wikipedia policy is "No One Owns" any article. Restored. 2603:7000:A900:45DF:9FA:A3F:A452:4C28 (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Uh, hi. The changes that I reverted amounted to a misspelling of "Protestantism" as "Ptotestantism" and an introduction of a sentence fragment at the beginning of a section. I see that you've made more edits since; however, at the time, it appeared to me that those changes were detrimental to the article. Since we also seem to be discussing Wikipedia policy, I'd like to gently remind you of Civility; there's no need to accuse me of WP:OWN or whatever "I don't like" is. Abasteraster (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh hi.  Wikipedia policy is that you give an explanation as to why you revert or summarily remove someone's edits. You didn't do that. And why so thin-skinned and accuse "incivility" simply because I brought up "no own" and "I don't like" as possible or even probable reasons as to what you did?   Because what else was I supposed to think, if you gave no explanation?   Misspelling is not a valid excuse to remove. Correct it. Not remove it. So the incivility is arguably yours here. How?  Since you gave no explanation for your removal.  Against Wikipedia policy. And to repeat...Wikipedia policy is to modify or correct something like a misspelling. Not necessarily to completely remove it.


 * And also you said that my edits seem to be detrimental to the article. How so? You didn't explain at all how it's detrimental. You're just asserting that.  Proving my point about "no own" and "I don't like".  You say my edits are worthless and detrimental etc.   But that's just your opinion. You don't go into any specifics of just how that presumably is the case. Against Wikipedia policy.  You're the one who's uncivil here. Revert again. And be reverted again. You have no warrant to remove good faith sourced and accurate additions simply because you personally don't like it. And that's exactly what it is.

2603:7000:A900:45DF:D4B4:F39A:1AA6:3527 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I apologize for templating you earlier when a personalized message on your talk page explaining the revert would have been more appropriate.
 * At the same time, I think your tone has been unnecessarily combative and brusque. Perhaps you're mistaken about what exactly I reverted? I haven't touched any of your later contributions to the article. Re-reading my earlier reply, it seems that I accidentally implied that all of your edits were detrimental. I'd like to clarify that I meant only the specific edits in the linked diff. Abasteraster (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter
If you look at the IP's contributions, you should be able to see a clickable link, "filter log". When you check that, you will see that they tried to insert the same BLP violation twice, and only on the third try did they succeed. If you check that before you leave a warning, you can adjust the level warning you want to give. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't know that you could do that. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me! Abasteraster (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. There's a lot more to it--obviously there are people writing those filters; that goes well over my head. There's also an unseen entity that checks for violations, and that may show up at Administrator intervention against vandalism, "Bot-reported". It's a bit of work to check it, clicking around and stuff, but sometimes it's helpful. Sometimes I block an editor and all you will see is one edit, and you may go "wait that was quick"--but the block may be placed after someone tried to screw something up a half dozen times. And "see filter log" is an extra half-line we can add to a block notice. Oh, if you're diving into this, if this interests you, you can have a look at what happens at Edit filter/False positives/Reports, where the "false positives" are reported--and where vandals go if they're frustrated. See what I just did pertaining to User talk:129.126.39.67. Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, I'll consider the filter logs when warning people from now on. Also, dealing with that false positive report page looks exhausting, haha. Huge respect for you admins for doing all of this work for free. Abasteraster (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's not just admins--everyone can check the log. It's only admins who can block, but I think you don't have to be an admin to actually work on the filters--you just have to be a geek, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)