User talk:Angus Lepper/Archive 4

C (programming language)
I am curious why you reverted the C (programming language) to remove a link to a tutorial and cited the change as vandalism. It looks like a good faith edit to me and could be useful to Wikipedia users to help understand the C language. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thanks. Truthanado 20:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point &mdash; I shouldn't have tagged it as vandalism, per se, and regretted doing so afterwards. However, the edit is, in my opinion, bad-faith. Consensus has been established against the addition of this link (for starters, it is both of poorer authority than the rest of the links and also contains a number of factual inaccuracies) before and has been tested multiple times (multiple users have reverted the addition of this link with explanation). The user (a range of IP addresses are adding the links &mdash; they're almost certainly the one person) is repeatedly spamming this link despite warnings and explanations (both in edit summary on on user talk pages) as to why this isn't being accepted. Also, purely as a matter of politesse, there is a note in the page requesting that new links be discussed on the talk page in an attempt to establish consensus so as to avoid these things. I hope this is, at least, an explanation of why I was so willing to revert it immediately! However, feel free to re-add the link if you feel it belongs and my explanation wasn't good enough. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't questioning your actions. As I said, I was curious about your reasoning and you did a good job of explaining it. It helps me learn about Wikipedia and how it works. Thanks again. Truthanado 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User User talk:4.235.120.238
After your final warning they vandalized Flyer22's talk page. They should be blocked now if you can. CelticGreen 00:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Records
Just dropping in to say thank you for your speel check of my edit. I do hope that message manages to at least turn off some vandals...

Warm regards, Javascap (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows Aero
Why has this "got to be spam" referring to reverting on the 19th an updated external link to a fixed page (not a generic domain) to a free piece of open source GPL software (Aerofoil) which includes no advertising? I see no reason not to have the external link to Aerofoil save the wrath of Microsoft or affiliates not wanting to admit that Aero can be nuisance or give the user the ability to more easily change the visual mode on the fly. For username reference (so to assure you spam is not intended) I have been an "old world" wikipedia editor and contributor for ~5 years including in the past fixing/watching vandalised articles such as vandalism, j2me, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and to be honest it's quite insulting to be told a link to an honestly genuine site - a specific blog entry - (it IS actually mine - although this should have no bearing) is spam. If you read around and google "aerofoil vista" you'll find it's mentioned in O'Reilly's Windows Vista Annoyances book, has been mentioned by "PC mag" online as an editor's choice, and is considered by a number of other sites to be be of good use for Windows Vista. If you feel that I have not cited enough references here I can provide other URLs.

Please consider reverting your edit or provide adequate justification has to how this "has got to be spam".

Thank you Brownb2 (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Angus Lepper, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a review of some of your contributions, I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended use of reverting vandalism: I do not believe you will abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)