User talk:Andrewrp/archive 2

Edits to Magic (Illusion)
Hi Andrew. Thanks for your recent note. I believe my edits to be founded - a quick look through the history of the page will show recent vanity additions. This tends to happen a lot on this page. --Kosmoshiva (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

apology and advice issued AndrewrpTally-ho! 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What is your problem?
Please read WP:MOSNUM and maybe try clicking the link I've changed to see that it's a redirect. 2 warnings what next you're gonna block me as usually happens? --86.40.209.112 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Vandal not familiar with wiki policy AndrewrpTally-ho! 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to learn something about vandalism. First of all you must be blind if you can't see italics and i asked you specifically to click the link. AND repeatedly removing things I write on your talk page? Do you think I have all day to be writing this nonsense to you? I bet you'll remove this as well. --86.40.209.112 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * == You and vandalism ==

Harassing message, user blocked AndrewrpTally-ho! 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:86.40.209.112‎
This is a situation where a non-template expanation of what was wrong would probably have been more effective. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, Will know next time something like this crops up AndrewrpTally-ho! 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oğuz Dağlaroğlu
Hi Andrewrp, I've declined this speedy per wp:athlete, as he's a footballer in the top Turkish league.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Ok, That's fine AndrewrpTally-ho! 01:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your use of automated tools...
...is being discussed on ANI. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where I have questioned your use of such tools and your reaction in selectively archiving your talk page and making nonsense edits after. Your considered reply would be appreciated. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Winoo
Hey Andrewrp, chciałem tylko zmienić nazwę platformy na poprawną czyli PC ponieważ Windows jest to system operacyjny a gry wychodzą na PC. Take care cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winooo (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think The correct term is windows. AndrewrpTally-ho! 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am outraged!!!!
How dare you change my edits, I am the manager of the team and changed the imformation which was wrong yet you give me a warning. It is an outrage! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.226.142 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry i was only having a joke around please forgive me :( thanks anyway :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.226.142 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

user blocked AndrewrpTally-ho! 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

46 Stix editing
I am actually a member of the band, and made 100% accure contributions to the article, thank you very much.

page listed as csd a7- band. AndrewrpTally-ho! 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

tags and redirect
I have removed the prod tag from Oscar by the Sea, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Ok.

I'm removing long unreferenced material. which is vandalism Also if you'd give me a minute I'll complete the redirect to VFA-87/ it was discussed, and is fine, proceed. AndrewrpTally-ho! 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Palazzo (Hong Kong)
I have removed the prod tag from The Palazzo (Hong Kong), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ok. but I did not know that it was contested. AndrewrpTally-ho! 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Palazzo (Hong Kong)
I have removed the prod tag from The Palazzo (Hong Kong), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gladiators
I removed long unreferenced material - it's been two years like that. That's any editors duty (and right). I'd appreciate it if you reverted to my version. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobyte fossil (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not "long unrefrencesd material" AndrewrpTally-ho! 13:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ocean Shores (Hong Kong)
I have removed the prod tag from Ocean Shores (Hong Kong), which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! 204.191.185.249 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gladiators
"...you must not remove ANY content from a page without consensus." Can you give me a reference for that please? Also it's recommended that you do not remove material from your talk page. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilobyte fossil (talk • contribs) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

edits are conrovertial, removing lots of "unrefrenced content". it has been that way for many edits. There is no discussion on the talkpage. AndrewrpTally-ho! 14:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gladiators
This is not a resolved issue - please cease archiving it. Any editor may remove unreferenced material (as I presume you know). This particular article has been tagged for two years with that and other problems.

I plan to revert it to an appropriate state. I will leave a note on its Talk page.

Trilobyte fossil (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Accepted AndrewrpTally-ho! 14:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What were you thinking...
... when you made this edit? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was reverting to a previous revision using huggle, due do a couple vandal edits. I did not relilize that I reverted still more vandalism. I removed it, and now it is free of vandalism. AndrewrpTally-ho! 23:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Aqeza
Why is this page marked "patrolled?" It was just written and is completely benign. Slrpwr (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Bill
 * page was marked for deletion, later deleted AndrewrpTally-ho! 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

the sokal affair
Feel free to visit the talk page and tell me why you consider my edit vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.228.193 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * didn't see edit summary AndrewrpTally-ho! 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

wording
EXCUSE ME BUT I AM NOT VANDALIZING THE PAGE. I AM ADDING TO IT TO MAKE IT FACTUALLY SOUND. I AM ALSO INCLUDING THAT IN THE NOTES. THERE IS NO REASON FOR YOU TO BE GIVING ME SUCH WARNINGS. 131.247.40.64 (talk) 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) I don't like the wording. Also, we don't use the v-word. AndrewrpTally-ho! 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused by vandalism warning...
I may be a noob around here, but I don't understand how this edit to Tim Pratt would be considered vandalism. I aim to improve, but pseudo-automatic-warnings don't provide much in the way of enlightenment. - Sincerely Schiec (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saw extra *'s and =, Sorry AndrewrpTally-ho! 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism.
Hi. This warning you left for an IP over this edit is completely mistaken; it was a constructive (if strictly speaking unnecessary) edit. And I see above that you have another person questioning your recent warning of them. If you are using Huggle, please slow down when reverting, and ensure that any vandalism is actually vandalism. // roux   22:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess that was unnessisary, should of have reverted but not warned. AndrewrpTally-ho! 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert and warning for User:Studioghiblitotoro
I think you may have been a little too zealous with your recent templated castigation of subject editor. See my response to your comment on his talk page. Thanks for your efforts, though. --Kbh3rd talk 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Saw AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies on the Rocco Perri edit
Hello Andrewrp, just wanted to apologise for the botched editing tonight on the Rocco Perri article. I misread the article history, it's the old too tired to edit and should quit while I'm ahead thing. Cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC) It's OK AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Hammerson
Please can you reconsider the tag you have put on Lewis Hammerson - he was the founder of what is now probably Britain's biggest property business. Dormskirk (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, google is not the sole criteria for notability. The issue is that he founded Britain's largest property company. Dormskirk (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at my edit history you will find that I am working on a project to improve the quality of all FTSE 100 articles and their founders and have already made about 20,000 entries with that objective. Please can you reconsider? Dormskirk (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Article Saved AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FPC Closing
If you have an issue with the closing, please feel free to let me know and we can discuss it.  wadester 16  20:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Ahhh, not nominated anyways. :( AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism
"Sure, blanking a talk is not vandalism. But I think blanking with warnings are."
 * According to the guideline, blanking warnings is allowed. See WP:BLANKING. It's a vandal getting rid of their visible warnings. They don't go away just because they get blanked. --Onorem♠Dil 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh well. They got blocked anyway...even though they hadn't vandalized past a final warning or in the last 15 minutes. --Onorem♠Dil 14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC) User Blocked AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you very much for reverting the vandalism on my userpage last week, I hadn't noticed until today. Jozal (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC) You're Welcome AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plant name- owns usernames
Hello. Thank you for filing Sockpuppet investigations/Plant name- owns usernames. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) DONE AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Vicenarian
I have delisted and deleted this case. I can assure you that Vicenarian is not Bambifan; the edits are not even similar, and the behaviour is totally different. He was telling the truth. Thanks. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok AndrewrpTally-ho! 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
Constant reverts like you did at Unite Against Fascism are not helpful, and you were taking part in an edit war, whether what you were reverting to was the "good version" or the "[[WP:VERSION|bad version". Also, comments like "WE WILL NOT STAND TO SEE THIS DONE. STOP NOW!!!!!!" (diff) are not helpful and are unprofessional, especially during a final warning. Unless the edit is blatant vandalism, which is was not, reverts like that constitute an edit war. The other user has been blocked for 31 hours, but please do not continue this behavior. Next time, take it to the talk page to avoid a block, as well.  [[User:hmwith| hmwith ]] τ  05:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC);:

Another user complained, it was not my faultAndrewrpTally-ho! 01:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

201.240.89.160
Could you take a look at the edits of this user Special:Contributions/201.240.89.160. I notice that you recently reverted their edit to Smash (album). Essentially they are introducing EPs and live albums in to the infobox chronology. I have directed them to read WikiProject_Albums, which states only studio albums should be included, however they have ignored my messages and reverted me. Obviously I don’t want to engage in an edit war with this user, and this is technically a content dispute, rather than blatant vandalism. However I would consider their actions rather disruptive having been directed to read guidance on infobox content that has been agreed upon by large consensus. I would appreciate your input on this matter. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really see the point of reverting, as they will just revert straight back. I was just trying to ascertain whether this was worth pursuing... As you can see, my attempts to communicate have been ignored... I assumed good faith to begin, but considering they ignored my initial message pointing out the agreed upon format, I find their continued edits a little disruptive. I'm afraid something's just come up and I have to leave for a while now, so don't let this issue distract you from anything. Cheers for your input. By the way, do you realise you warned yourself below!?! Nouse4aname (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See Above AndrewrpTally-ho! 01:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Joke edits?

 * Would you be so kind as to define HERE what you consider to be a "joke" edit? I'm sure people who have been accused by you would love to see that definiens.76.195.93.15 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied, WIkinazi? AndrewrpTally-ho!

Tkdchicka123 who was banned, appears now to be Tkdchicka125
A section in Niihau was deleted Tkdchicka125, reverted, and deleted again by Tkdchicka125. I am not sure what to do about it, if anything. Suggestions? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages reverting
Hi. I just noticed you reverted my edits in a couple of comic book talk pages, and left notices on my talk page. I only removed them from the category "requested images for comics", since the articles already had images, added by myself. I hope i didn't do anything wrong. Thanks for your time.PervyPirate (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You looked like a vandal, and removing image=yes on lots of pages looked suspicious. Now that you have an explanation, you're fine. Also, remember: when uploading comic book covers, make sure they are low res, resize if nessary. Make sure to include free use rationale, too. AndrewrpTally-ho! 20:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

csda7
I did put the hangon in my post.................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanSlamme (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed to be csd A7, nothing wrong. with what I did. AndrewrpTally-ho! 19:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Andrewrp! , thanks for reverting Vandalism on my user page Atif.t2 (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And on mine as well, I highly appreciate your undo. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WLOT-LP
I have reported you at WP:ANI. 69.221.165.95 (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not my site. Did you read that section? It's talking about an ownership battle that's undecided. 69.221.165.95 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)