User talk:Fraggle81/Archive 2

Gari Sullivan: Citizen Journalist
I am wondering why you believe information about the citizen journalist Gari Sullivan should be removed.

Gari Sullivan is one of the most internationally recognised members of the citizen journalism community. He has been an active participant in citizen journalism for a number of years. During that time he has reported from Syria. He even went to the country to report on events there when the mainstream media was claiming they couldn't get into the country.

He has lectured on the subject of citizen journalism around Australia and New Zealand; talking to activists and university students. He has also lectured at the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia (CBAA) conference and was a panellist alongside the much respected Australian journalist Margaret Simonds (who is currently the director of journalism at Melbourne University). His Linked-In profile will tell you that he has many contacts in the fields of journalism and media; including those who have written extensively on citizen journalism, including Dr. Martin Hurst and Dr. John Cokley who lecture in journalism at Deakin and Queensland universities in Australia and Andy Price at the University of Teesside in your part of the world. Gari is highly regarded by many involved in the development of citizen journalism as a key member of the sector.

All of this information, I supported with external links in my contribution to the Wikipedia page on citizen journalism. I am a journalist and like to think I know something of the industry! I don't agree fully with all the opinions that Mr. Sullivan has on the subject, but I am fully aware and can verify his extensive and influential contribution to it. I believed information about Mr. Sullivan to be a valid and a valuable contribution to the information on Citizen Journalism; I still do believe this.

The onus is on you to explain and justify your removal of his information - and my contribution. Unless you know something about citizen journalism, professional journalism and Gari Sullivan that directly contradicts the information I contributed on the subject, I respectfully suggest you do not remove it.

Alex Mann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexisthatyou (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You have marked every edit you have made for Gari Sullivan as a minor one despite adding large sections of text into pages and therefore clearly not a minor edit. Also the tone of what you have written seems to be promotional and I can find no Wikipedia page for Gari Sullivan nor any supporting third party reliable news sources to suggest he is noteworthy.


 * Not to get personal but what you are or do in the real world has no bearing here all editors are equal. Your comments "I respectfully suggest you do not remove it" are also not helpful and are against Wikipedia policy.


 * I am going to remove your edits again since your inline citation is not from a reliable news source and Gari Sullivan has no Wikipedia page. I would suggest that you add a new page for Gari Sullivan and if it passes notability then you re add your content linking to this new page plus reliable third party news sources. Fraggle81 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Masters
Hi, you edited an edit I did on this page. I am wondering why. My edit wasn't abusive. Just by using google it is possible to see that Peter Masters is a controversial figure who arouses argument online and off. The page on which he has an entry seems to treat his opposition to certain worship forms as though it should be taken as read that they are non-biblical. I just didn't want this to pass without comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.83.92 (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, thanks for your comments. I did a good faith revert on your edit as the article you edited is a biography of a living person and your edits were unreferenced and had some issues with the tone of what was written. If you're interested this link will give you the guidelines for writing about living people. If you are a new editor I hope I haven't discouraged you from editing, everyone has edits undone from time to time. I would also ask you to consider getting yourself a username as it appears you have a dynamic IP address and means myself and other editors are unable to leave messages for you. If there's anything else you need just give me a shout Fraggle81 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fayetteville State University
Hello! Thank you for looking over the content I added. Could you please explain what guidelines I violated or what I could have done differently to keep the content that I added to the Student Media section of the Fayetteville State University page from being deleted? I'm a newbie and am just trying to learn the ropes. Thanks again! (Natsuba (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC))


 * Hello, thanks for your comment. Looking over that particular edit again I think it probably should be added back in to the media section. Wikipedia had flagged it for possible link spam so it came up on the list of edits to be looked at, it wasn't anything you did wrong. I'll revert my own edit so it is added back in. Anyway welcome to Wikipedia :) everything here is a bit of a learning process. I've been around here quite a while and am always finding something new. I will leave a welcome gift on your page which should be of some help with learning about Wikipedia. Fraggle81 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Thanks for the help! (Natsuba (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Notts County F.C.
Hi, you inadvertently reverted to a vandalised version. --palmiped | Talk  22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look and see why. Fraggle81 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Tram
Please discuss this on the talk page; it is obviously not merely vandalism, but a content dispute. Nczempin (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Nczempin, not really sure what there is to discuss. I have no interest and no feelings either way about whether a tram is a train or not.
 * Writing "a damn train" with an edit summary of "bitch be a train" is why I removed it.
 * The editor responsible has had almost every edit they have made reverted since they started editing in 2007 and have been warned numerous times by different editors.  Fraggle81 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I missed the first edit, clearly unconstructive. The other ones had inappropriate edit summaries, but that alone is no reason to revert; the content looked like WP:AGF edits, but not vandalism. Nczempin (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was a lot of good faith there judging by edit history. I feel that the edits were purely disruptive, the edit summaries that the user gave just seem to confirm that. Fraggle81 (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough . Nczempin (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, from STiki !
also A special thanks from West.andrew.g for a selfless use of STiki in combating vandalism without worrying about the editcounts/reverts.  D Big X ray  18:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism
Dear Fraggle81:

I certainly agree that placing comments alleging you and others delete stuff at will for no valid reason in content pages is a no-no, but my sense of justice has been so assaulted by your exploitation of those who sincerely want to contribute, and by your unimpeded ability to dele for the flimsiest of pretexts--which is a disgrace to the purpose Wikipedia--that I have resorted to what you call vandalism.

However, Before I declare war on those of you whose only qualification for becoming an editor is their desire to inflict psychological pain and raise an army to stop this abuse of the masses I am willing to try diplomacy. My email address is smrosner@optonline.net write me directly with your email address and we can exchange phone numbers and talk like humans. If you are truly sincere and my characterization of you and your threats is wrong I will surely apologize, but if you are some nerdy techy who just loves upsetting people anonymously by deleting their contributions, you will find me a formidable opponent who will make sure what you and others are doing is well publicized. Keep in mind, "history" is on my side. Because everything is documented, you editors will be the laughing stock of truly educated people when they are informed some editor removed my additions to the Psalms stating "I removed your recent addition to the article Psalms as it did not cite any sources, and appears to be original research. Please use the links on the welcome message above to read about reliable sources and our other content policies.

Steve Rosner author (A Guide to the Pslams of David Outskirts Press: 2012) Livebymyheart (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may add my thoughts here, User:Fraggle81 likely flagged your continued edits as vandalism due to your continued addition of material without following the policies we all operate with here. Material in articles must be verifiable and reliably sourced. The material you have added is unsourced, which point you argue is not possible given that there were no third parties around when it was written to source. However, there are MANY third party sources around today (and have been for centuries) which comment on the Psalms and other portions of religious texts. Citing those sources is perfectly acceptable (so long as they meet our requirements for reliable sources). What we don't do here is original research, there are plenty of other places on the internet to publish our intepretation of things (including religious texts). This is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and not a place to create or disseminate "new" research. I, and others, have been polite and we are generally interested in working with new editors to support them in their efforts to improve this project. Your accusations and somewhat veiled threats challenge us to continue to assume good faith; I don't mind the challege, but I request that you at least treat us with the same respect we show you. If you have questions about our policies - I will help you, and most other editors here will help you as well. If you are not willing to work within our framework, then you will find your way here difficult. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Steve, as Tgeairn said, my problem with your edits is that you repeatedly left comments in the article space when they should either be on the articles talk page or on the talk page of an editor. Diplomacy is exactly what is needed here, If someone is removing what you feel are legitimate edits then please discuss it with them in the appropriate place. Fraggle81 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may add my thoughts here, User:Fraggle81 likely flagged your continued edits as vandalism due to your continued addition of material without following the policies we all operate with here. Material in articles must be verifiable and reliably sourced. The material you have added is unforced, which point you argue is not possible given that there were no third parties around when it was written to source. However, there are MANY third party sources around today (and have been for centuries) which comment on the Psalms and other portions of religious texts. Citing those sources is perfectly acceptable (so long as they meet our requirements for reliable sources). What we don't do here is original research, there are plenty of other places on the internet to publish our interpretation of things (including religious texts). This is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and not a place to create or disseminate "new" research. I, and others, have been polite and we are generally interested in working with new editors to support them in their efforts to improve this project. Your accusations and somewhat veiled threats challenge us to continue to assume good faith; I don't mind the challenge, but I request that you at least treat us with the same respect we show you. If you have questions about our policies - I will help you, and most other editors here will help you as well. If you are not willing to work within our framework, then you will find your way here difficult. --Tearing (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hello Steve, as Tearing said, my problem with your edits is that you repeatedly left comments in the article space when they should either be on the articles talk page or on the talk page of an editor. Diplomacy is exactly what is needed here, If someone is removing what you feel are legitimate edits then please discuss it with them in the appropriate place. Fraggle81 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Fraggle81 & Tearing:

Forgive the delay in getting back to you. To start, let me say I have concluded both of you are sincere and well-meaning and I certainly recognize and appreciate the effort you expend and work you do relating to Wikipedia, while I have merely added to one topic--of millions--of which I have some expertise. Nonetheless, as my experience seems to be a microcosm of a significant problem that goes on constantly in Wikipedia, I have given this matter some thought and hope my feedback might be useful to reduce undesirable conflicts, which not only take up a significant amount of time, but worse, foment negative emotional energy between the parties.

But first, let me dispense with two issues surrounding my own contribution. Regarding vandalism, I need say nothing more than I overreacted and regret my emotional immaturity—however temporary. Regarding possible copyright infringement, I was new to the process of contributing and having enough trouble just formatting text, I did not take the time to read the copyright standards for submission, nor did I imagine Wikipedia was very serious about this issue. More to the point, since I knew there was no infringement since I was citing my own material, I ignored the warnings and reversed the deletions. Only when my ability to enter data was suspended did I realize copyright was taken seriously and that my suspension was justified. Accordingly, I submitted the Copyright Notice and Declaimer documentation which was accepted and my suspension lifted.

So far so good. But before discussing the specifics of other, more subtle, issues surrounding my contribution, it is important to recognize that as the major assumption communicated to me by Wikipedia editors is a priori false, certain rules, policies and procedures have built-in flaws that in and of itself cannot help but cause much of the controversy that goes on within the Wikipedia universe. What I am referring to is the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, albeit on-line, and one must follow established rules for that genre. However, a true encyclopedia is edited by named experts in various fields whose contributions are recorded and whose scholarship is documented. Obviously no one can walk in off the street and edit the Encyclopedia Britannica. But with Wikipedia, that is precisely what occurs. Anyone, anywhere, anytime, can anonymously add to, change or delete the content of almost any article. By itself, that is neither good nor bad. But trying to hold contributors and editors to the strict rules of encyclopedia writing—as noble as that might be--is unrealistic and unwise. And the basically unrestricted enforcing of some of the more subtle rules under this scenario causes much if not most of the controversy that you editors deal with every day. In my mind, if the leadership that set up Wikipedia fail to at least acknowledge this undeniable truth, then individuals like myself, many of whom are creative and passionate, and who often are given little or no leeway, will simply move on and the benefit of our combined knowledge lost to the world. But every problem has a solution and there are remedies I will detail later.

Aside from that, I hope you will agree some editors are incompetent; some are insensitive; some are biased; and worse, some are malicious. Anyone can change/remove anything, at any time and rationalize it any way he/she desires. Also--and now I am referring to sincere editors--I would think in many cases where whole sections are deleted, the editor knows far less about the subject matter than the contributor. For example, I spent over a year writing A Guide to the Psalms of David (if you go to www.guidetothepsalms.com through “Look Inside” you can view over 50+ pages) so I hope you understand how some of the objections to my contribution seemed so flimsy or meaningless, that I could only conclude the editor had either little understanding of the facts related to the psalms, or had some other agenda. In short, while certain characteristics of a contribution can be seen as inappropriate by anyone, most of the more subtle reasons for removing something are a matter of opinion, and lack of expertise by an editor could produce the most fanciful of reasons. As a result, the author is put into a position where he may have to justify his contribution to every Tom, Dick and Harry, many of whom have little understanding of the subject matter, limited writing and communication skills, bias when the topic is of a religious or political nature, etc. It is not an unreasonable analogy to state that would-be like a fan leaving the stands at a football game and telling the quarterback what play to run. To take my own contribution, everything was deleted by someone named Jcboyle for “biased and uncited additions” which is meaningless without specific examples, not to mention his User and Talk pages showed no activity, while his Contribution page showed mine was the first article he edited in 4 years. Could you blame me for assuming he was, at best, a flake, at worst malicious?

Aside from that, it is clear there are no hard and fast rules for much of the editing, as it is a matter of judgment. However, when the deletion is without warning, minutes after an undo or new section is saved, it understandably, suggests the editor either has a vendetta against the contributor, is biased, or disruptive. If one stops to think, could any legitimate editor read and evaluate material so as to delete it within moments of its placement? Hardly.

Yet, as I mentioned earlier, there are remedies and while not something that can be implemented overnight, Wikipedia leadership would be wise to consider the following (which is in outline form, the details and exceptions to be determined):

1. Only registered editors with a minimum of, say, 6 months on the system could delete more than, say, 25% of any section. 2. Every deletion must give a Notice to the Author which I’ll call a Notice to Delete (NTD).

3. Each NTD must present specific examples of what the editor finds objectionable, why, and if not obvious a reference to the rule(s) that has been violated.

4. The author would have 3-5 business days to respond to a NTD. 5. (a) If the author ignores the NTD, the editor would be allowed to delete the material.

(b) If he conforms to the request, the NTD would be dismissed. (c)If, however, the author responds, but challenges the proposed changes or makes minor changes not acceptable to the issuer of the NTD, the editor would go an “appeals” court—consisting of three administrators who either sustain or dismiss the NTD by majority vote.

While setting up a scenario as the above, including the additional programming, will require much work, in the long-run I believe it will have astounding benefit. Aside from virtually eliminating malicious editing or vandalism, even well-meaning editors would be forced to truly evaluate the material and justify their objections as they could no longer, without any effort whatsoever, go in and excise part or all of an article. I would predict if a process similar to the above was implemented, controversies would not only be reduced by more than 80%, but the overall Wikipedia product would benefit by encouraging new and as well as distinguished individuals to contribute, knowing their hard work could not be zapped within seconds by some third-rate anonymous individual pretending to be a modern day Mark Twain.

=
=================================================

Despite everything however, somehow Wikipedia does work and continues to grow by leaps and bounds. And I fully recognize that as no one is forcing me to add content to Wikipedia, I need conform to the existing rules however unwise I might think some might be. Thus, I must abide by the rule disallowing “original research” which was, in fact, true of much of the content. (Although it should be easy to find OR all over Wikipedia which remain in place, it is beyond the scope of this communication to either argue it should be allowed, or to use the inequities of partial enforcement as a reason for allowing mine to stay.) Likewise, I must concede that as content should be basically factual and not opinion, it would rule out statements such as:


 * “What English-speaking individual is unmoved by Psalm 23:


 * ''The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
 * He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.
 * He leadeth me beside the still waters...''

or


 * Yet the above [Psalm 23] is only one of numerous psalms, if less well-known, that address universal themes in wonderful poetic fashion; compositions that we all need at one time or another—when overwhelmed or remorseful, when grief-stricken or enraged, in times of despair or times of joy—whether in a formal prayer service, or individually, as part of our own special relationship with God.

On the other hand, rules as articulated by Tearing:


 * :Material in articles must be verifiable and reliably sourced...which point you argue is not possible given that there were no third parties around when it was written to source. However, there are MANY third party sources around today (and have been for centuries) which comment on the Psalms and other portions of religious texts. Citing those sources is perfectly acceptable (so long as they meet our requirements for reliable sources).

are not always applicable, and I stand by my statement it is not applicable as it relates to much of the content I added for the psalms. But perhaps I did not articulate my argument as well as I could so let me try again. Since the 150 psalms are extant (in the original Hebrew), statements made either summarizing them, characterizing their content, delineating authorship, etc. should not require a citation for the simple reason that the contributor has available exactly the same source material any prior source would have. Unless Wikipedia expects me to cite my own book, I cannot accept the assertion that content such as that which follows needs citations: (other than perhaps the reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and/or dates mentioned).
 * ''One hundred and fifty compositions make up the Book of Psalms, although it appears from other sources, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that many more were written but are no longer extant. Known familiarly as The Psalms of David, their composition spans almost 950 years from the time of Moses (around 1475 BCE) to when Psalm 126 was written (around 515 BCE)—that celebrates returning to Jerusalem seventy years after Israel’s exile to Babylon.

''
 * Of the six known composers, David is by far the most prolific. Seventy-three psalms are specifically attributed to him, while another six can safely be ascribed to him on the basis of their content. One psalm each is attributed to Moses, Ethan, and Human—the latter two being musicians during the time of David. Eleven psalms are attributed to the Sons of Karachi, and twelve to Asp—Levites who assisted in the Temple service—but they were composed over the centuries by descendants from those families, as the text clearly relates to different time periods. The authors of the remainder, forty-five psalms, are unspecified.

Contrast the above to an article about a battle in WWII that delineated the number of soldiers, tanks, artillery, planes, etc. Citations for those figures are necessary as the author obviously wasn’t there to count them. But the Hebrew text of the psalms has remained the same for over 1000 years, so to cite say “John Psalmsmeister: The Complete History of the Psalms (StarTrek Press 1975)” for statements relating to the number, the authors, and the content of the psalms should not only be unnecessary, but seems foolish, since John Pslamsmeister gathered his information the same way I did—by going through them. Indeed, if I had to cite any source, it would be “Steve Rosner: A Guide to the Psalms of David.” But as livebymyheart is Steve Rosner, that seems rather absurd.

Given the above, I have rewritten my contribution which I would ask you to review before I place it live. If acceptable, and if others come in and delete it, I would hope I could call on you to defend it. On the other hand, if you still have major problems with it, I’ll wish you the best and move on. I’ll conclude Wikipedia is not the right venue for me, as I neither have the energy to expend nor the inclination to engage in continuous and superficial disputes. Better to find one in which my talents can inspire people--as the psalmist states--to “clean hands and a pure heart.”

All the Best!

Steve Rosner OVERVIEW

The Psalms of David, “in sublimity, beauty, pathos, and originality, or in one word, poetry, are superior to all the odes, hymns, and songs in any language.” So states John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Although typically thought of as hymns of praise to God, they are so much more. They are invoked to bless, as well as to curse, to comfort and instruct, to lament and inspire. In tone, they span the gamut of human emotions from ecstasy to despair, indignation to remorse, grief to relief, fear to awe, and rage to love. They talk about the rewards of righteousness, the pitfalls of evil, the grandeur of the universe, and the corruption of mankind. In metaphors and poetry unsurpassed, The Psalms depict God's Might and His Benevolence; God’s Judgment and His Compassion; God’s Glory and His Righteousness. One hundred and fifty compositions make up the Book of Psalms, although it appears from other sources, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, that many more were written but are no longer extant. [cit] Known familiarly as The Psalms of David, their composition spans almost 950 years from the time of Moses (around 1475 BCE) to when Psalm 126 was written (around 515 BCE) [cit]—that celebrates returning to Jerusalem seventy years after Israel’s exile to Babylon. Of the six known composers, David is by far the most prolific. Seventy-three psalms are specifically attributed to him, while another six can safely be ascribed to him on the basis of their content. One psalm each is attributed to Moses, Ethan, and Human—the latter two being musicians during the time of David. Eleven psalms are attributed to the Sons of Karachi, and twelve to Asp—Levites who assisted in the Temple service—but they were composed over the centuries by descendants from those families, as the text clearly relates to different time periods. The authors of the remainder, forty-five psalms, are unspecified.

The earliest known psalm, Psalm 90, was written by Moses during the forty years Israel remained in the desert after the Exodus. It, a plea for mercy, was likely composed during one of the numerous times Moses interceded on behalf of Israel, after the latter had incurred God’s wrath. David appeared on the scene some 400 years later and consolidated the Twelve Tribes into a formidable kingdom. While many of his compositions were songs of praise suitable for use in the Temple service, an equal number were heart-rending appeals for Divine Intervention and Mercy during the numerous occasions he was beleaguered by his enemies. Later psalms relate to or lament the breaching of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and/or the exile of Israel to Babylon, some 500 years after David’s time.

CLASSIFYING THE PSALMS

(The following is analogous to the content under PSALM FORMS: Hermann Gunkel's pioneering form-critical work on the psalms sought to provide a new and meaningful context in which to interpret individual psalms…) While attempts have been made to categorize The Psalms [cit], the sheer diversity of sentiment and content; the range of human emotions; the varied themes; the manifold purposes—from joyful songs of praise and thanksgiving to desperate pleadings for mercy and deliverance—has mitigated against their arrangement into neat and unique categories. Previous attempts have been either limited to a subset of psalms [cit] or classification has been one-dimensional that have failed to serve the purpose of readily and easily directing one to specific psalms for reference, prayer, meditation, etc. [cit[ Steve Rosner's pioneering work A Guide to the Psalms of David attempts to rectify this situation by development of a taxonomy classifying each of the 150 psalms within 4 major categories. They include: 1.	Purpose 2.	Theme 3.	For Whom Intended 4.	Mood Each category is sub-divided into 12–15 groupings or subcategories and the salient characteristic assigned to each psalm. Then using modern data base technology, tables cross-reference the entire corpus making it easy to find the psalm or psalms according to the criteria desired.

Livebymyheart (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
hey kitty im a cat looking fort a good time reow

Georgiaandbree101 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC) 


 * Reow indeed :) thanks for that. I will send out for some catnip for you. Fraggle81 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrectly reverted edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Substitution_failure_is_not_an_error&diff=501627200&oldid=479815364 This edit was perfectly valid and not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.246.232.86 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Fraggle81 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Covered Bond
hi fraggle81, where would you put the german pfandbrief ... because it is by today the biggest covered bond market, and it is in the "history" section. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

202.45.119.40
Thanks for reporting this chronic source of vandalism (a school full of kids). I've blocked it for a year. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure to help Fraggle81 (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You identified something as vandalism that was not vandalism
On John Roberts, I reworked two weak and passive verb constructions into more active forms. I have no idea why you deemed this as "vandalism." Are you using some kind of bot? If you look at my history, you'll see I frequently copyedit poor phrasing. I reverted to my correction as it was not vandalism. 108.36.80.228 (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, these edits were not marked as vandalism. I notice the changes you have reverted back to have now been reverted again by another editor. Fraggle81 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am quoting verbatim from the page you referenced when you made your changes: "STiki is a tool used to detect and revert vandalism on Wikipedia available to trusted users." [Emphasis added.] I did not say you marked them as vandalism; I said you deemed them vandalism. When you change someone's work, then link to a page that refers to reverting vandalism, how am I not to surmise you concluded my changes were vandalism? As well, the fact that someone else reverted the material is irrelevant -- did you see the reason why he reverted them? He did not deem them vandalism -- he only said "the original was better." Hence, your rationale of another user's reversion is irrelevant and inconclusive to the matter at hand. My changes were clearly not vandalism. How is removing verbose language vandalism? Did you even read what you changed before you changed it?


 * I can well understand with this little episode why Wikipedia's user base is declining. I take the time to do some copyediting that is then removed with some obfuscating non-reason and then am treated rudely in the process. I have thirty years of professional experience as an editor, including time at Condé Nast. I thought I could contribute constructively to Wikipedia, where the idea of "collaboration" is apparently only a fiction and spiteful clique preservation is more important. I apparently thought wrong. 108.36.80.228 (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly any edits made are my responsibility. STiki is not a "defective bot" as you have been claiming on the talk page of Fat&Happy.
 * The message left on your talk page does not mention vandalism or accuse you of being a vandal. The edit summary left is a standard one left by STiki.


 * At what point have you been treated rudely? I make a point of being polite even when faced with hostility as the various message on my talk page show.


 * Your thirty years of editing experience mean absolutely zero with regards to being a Wikipedia editor, we each bring something of our real world lives to our editing here and there are many professional people who edit without ever mentioning what they do. All editors are equal and this means that sometimes edits you make will be changed, deleted and reverted, these things happen with collaboration which according to you "is apparently only a fiction".


 * If you are going to get upset by other editors actions then perhaps you need to consider whether being an editor here is the correct thing for you. Thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Welsh Longbow
I put in that the English Longbow was invented by the Welsh (masters of the Longbow) why did you remove that? Having looked at the 'History Button' in the top right of that page your reason for removing it was 'good faith' etc which means you know I'm right :P Unless you're trying to cover the truth?

Thanks for any conclusion in response to this!

I don't see any reason not to include what I have written, unless you put it in and clarify the topic yourself, in any case it would still be the truth!

Cheers!


 * Hello, in which case you need to add the relevant sources to prove what you are saying. Your edits were reverted as good faith because I don't think you were intentionally being disruptive. If your edits are indeed based in fact then please leave adequate references to prove such. Thanks Fraggle81 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

McIntosh444: PlanetSide 2
I think you did make a mistake by reverting my edit to Planetside 2. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with positive or not, but was just a quote of what John Smedley said by his own words. You can view the article by clicking the criteria and see this is a quote and not a criticism. For now, I will leave the article asyou left it, but I think my edit (the one you undid) only enriched it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McIntosh444 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi McIntosh444, thanks for the message. Sorry about that, I didn't realise it was a direct quote. I will revert my own edits on Planetside 2 and remove the notification from your talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks you very much for your attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McIntosh444 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

71.174.247.5: Nathaniel Philbrick
Hello! You incorrectly identified a edit I made to Nathaniel Philbricks page as vandalism. He did work on Yaahting and that is what that instance in his article should link to. I have a hard copy of Yaahting that lists Nathaniel Philbrick as an editor. I actually made a mistake because I failed to correct the works name from "Yachting: A Parody" to "Yaahting: A Parody" in his article. This has [| already been dealt with], the spelling is intentionally "yaahting", and somewhere that spelling was lost. I would appreciate it very much if you would edit the page to read "Yaahting: A Parody". 71.174.247.5 (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, thanks for the message. I have changed the page as requested and removed the warning from your talk page. I have also added an editing note so that in future editors will know this is the correct spelling. Fraggle81 (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Addison Montgomery
Hello! I recently made an edit to include "Satan" as one of Addison Montgomery's nicknames. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Grey's Anatomy, but a lot of the characters get nicknames, from McDreamy to McSteamy to even The Nazi, all of which are listed on Wikipedia (Derek Shepherd, Mark Sloan, and Miranda Bailey, respectively). Addie got the nickname "Satan", among others. If you google "Addison Montgomery Satan", you should get a lot of hits (probably including some of her own lines, like "Actually, I prefer Ruler of All That Is Evil, but I will answer to Satan" --> http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0021667/quotes ). The Grey's Anatomy wiki also lists it --> http://greysanatomy.wikia.com/wiki/Addison_Forbes_Montgomery.

I'm not sure if that's good enough reason to put it on the page, but she was called Satan more often than Miranda was called The Nazi, so I didn't think it would be odd to put there. I don't particularly mind the edit coming down if it's still a bad idea, but I just wanted to clarify that the edit was not intended as vandalism :)


 * Thanks for the clarification Fraggle81 (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Golden Eagle
Though you have noted this pub is not noteworthy above any other pub, it has a keen and interesting history, you can read the page to find out more about this, most notably the history section. I apologise if you feel the new section is too much of an advertisement, a lot of the local residents have been asking about it and as this is a source of information website, we have provided the required information. Thank you for your concerns and edits though, they have been noted. Regards


 * See the message left on your talk page. Fraggle81 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Fraggle81. Please note that, per WP:CONTESTED, "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a  tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. . . . . If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Articles for deletion."  Since 212.183.128.187 has already removed the prod--and has even given you a good faith explanation for the removal, although this is not required--replacing the prod isn't appropriate. You are welcome to take this AfD if you wish. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Arxiloxos, had realised my mistake and am on with AfD now, thanks for letting me know Fraggle81 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely this is a site for information, people look to this site to provide them with knowledge about certain places, whether you as a person deem them notable enough or not, I do not understand your clear and keen interest in trying to remove this article or delete sections, information has been provided for the people about this notable and historic pub. What edits would fall in line with your view of exactly what Wikipedia warrants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.187 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, this is a site where you should find material that you would find in an encyclopaedia. This is not a business directory, tourist guide or anything similar. You are claiming your pub is notable but as yet you haven't been able to show you meet the Wikipedia criteria for being notable. This is nothing personal, if you can prove notability then I have no problem. Pretty much any pub in the UK is historic, it's part of our culture. You need to show why yours is more than that and somewhere that should be in an encyclopaedia. As an example, The Signal Box Inn from your area is possibly the worlds smallest pub according to the Guinness book of records which may warrant notability. There are so many pubs in the UK of a similar age and pedigree that to list all them would be a fallacy. As things stand the article seems more like a promotional piece than an academic article. I have pressed to save articles before such as The Penhallow Hotel fire so I'm not an out and out deletionist, however I don't feel this page belongs here in it's present state. Judging by the edit history of the page in question I'm by no means the first editor to think this way.


 * If you can satisfy the notability criteria then the chances are the article will remain, if not then it should be removed in accordance with guidelines. Fraggle81 (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

the late Brittany Murphy
Hi Fraggle, thank you for dropping me a note about this. My reason for removing "the late" was simply that it had no relevance in the context in which it was used. Murphy's death was not the reason she did not make the film and if it had been the reason, the sentence could have been reworded to reflect that. Murphy's name appears in numerous articles in different contexts, and a consistent approach would be to go through all of them and change to "the late". Eventually every person mentioned on Wikipedia will die but it's not practical or necessary to refer to them all as "the late" when they unfortunately pass away unless the death is specific to the point being made. Thanks again for the note - your courtesy is appreciated. Cheers. 121.208.89.250 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for bringing this to my attention. That wasn't actually why your edits were reverted.
 * The display I have showed your last 2 edits combined. In your first edit you added [[File:Example.jpg]] which also broke the "production" section heading. The second edit you made you changed Rose to RoseH and despite the fact that you removed the image in your second edit it still showed as there in the combined view. Your removal of "The late" however did not show at all.
 * It may be an issue with the tool I use, I'm not sure. If I can replicate the problem then it may be something I have to notify its developers about.Fraggle81 (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ok thanks. I understand now that you were going back to the last clean version. I didnt notice "RoseH" and I should preview before I save. Cheers 121.208.89.250 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was passing by and thought to comment over here as well. Fraggle the diff you saw on the Stiki screen would be same as this combined diff of 2 edits. The Third edit was done after your revert as visible from the page history here.-- D Big X ray  23:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice
Hi Fraggle, glad to see your awesome work in anti-vandalism. I also see that your Pages are regularly vandalized. May be you can use Edit notice, to discourage vandals from editing your userpage. for a demo check out my userpage and talk page and try editing it. I think it really works. -- D Big X ray  22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi DBX, thanks for the kind words and also for pointing me in the direction of Edit notice. It's not something I've come across before but certainly looks to be something I could use. I will see about getting things set up when I have a little more time later today. Thanks again Fraggle81 (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at setting it up and I've shamelessly ripped off your user page edit notice as I thought it was that good . Hopefully that will do the job. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

213.113.168.196
While I understand why you removed my edit and all, it was truthful, I got the e-mail today and I still have it. Anywho, it doesn't follow the definition of vandalism, so find another reason for removing it.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.168.196 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you will find it does satisfy the criteria for vandalism. It could also fall under other criteria such as WP:BLP just as an example, either way that particular edit doesn't belong here. Fraggle81 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thales Training & Simulation
Please explain why my edits to Thales Training & Simulation were reverted with no explanation on the IP talk page, the article talk page, nor in the edit summary. My edit updated a statement in the article, verified by multiple sources (I used NASDAQ as the reference). 66.87.0.211 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm this appears to be an error on my part, perhaps an accidental double click. I'll do a revert anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! 66.87.2.215 (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a problem Fraggle81 (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, and good on you for coming to revert your friends edit. Fraggle81 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou
Thanks for suggesting rollback. I have heard of it and file mover but I tend to keep a low profile. I have a watchlist of nearly 200 pages but most are left untouched and the high profile ones are usually corrected before I see them. I still consider myself a novice although do have pet projects on wikipedia.REVUpminster (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand where your coming from about keeping a low profile, although from what I have seen you are a good editor and exactly what Wikipedia needs more of. If or when you feel ready I hope you go for rollback, it helps greatly in dealing with bad edits. Whatever you decide I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Fraggle81 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am proposing that List of computer viruses (Numeric), List of computer viruses (A-D), List of computer viruses (E-K), List of computer viruses (L-R) and List of computer viruses (S-Z) all be merged into one article List of computer viruses.

I can see that you have previously edited this article and was wondering if you had any thoughts on the matter.

The discussion on this matter can be found here.

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Many thanks.

Sirkus (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnegat Bay Issues Page
Hi Fraggle,

I noticed that the Barnegat Bay Issues section has been plagued by some vandalism lately and that you have been trying to help remove some inaccurate information regarding the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. The section was also missing citations. I've gone ahead created a draft of what this section could look like, which you will find in my sandbox.

I'd edit the page directly myself, but I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would like someone else to review the content in my sandbox @ User:OselJ/sandbox and provide feedback. Is that something you could assist with? --OselJ (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism edit
Hi Fraggle81,

I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate very much the revert on the page of Camille and Kennerly Kitt, which had been a victim of a minor case of vandalism. I have put many hours into that page, and I try to keep an eye on it, but I failed, so I'm very grateful for your kind help. Thank you very much indeed, and have a nice day! Dontreader (talk) 05:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You reverted an edit I made
Except that edit was a comment, in the talk section of the article, not a contribution to the actual article itself, and could not be seen by anyone reading the article unless the person viewed the talk page... which is full of non objective information, arguments and etc... So why delete it? Seems childish to me to delete a comment made on the talk page that isn't visible to anyone reading the article. But what do I know, I don't live on wikipedia patroling the pages for violations of severe degree's like some apparently do.


 * First thing, learn to sign your comments with ~
 * secondly, name calling is unnecessary and says more about you than it does about me.
 * Your comment was hidden, if it's on the talk page why hide it? Putting hidden "LOL" comments anywhere on Wikipedia is a surefire way to get them deleted. Fraggle81 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

 * Lol, now it's my turn to say thanks for the revert ;) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's that old saying, one good turn deserves another . Glad to help. Fraggle81 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Mangere
Hey I got a "New Message" from you while looking at computer generated animation. I've never edited on wikipedia, let alone edit anything to do with Mangere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.216.216 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, this happens a lot. The IP address you are using was previously assigned to someone else who vandalised Wikipedia. The best thing to do is create your own account and log in so that you only get messages meant for you. Fraggle81 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

USS Coronado (AGF-11)
I apologize if I offended you, I was simply excited, I am onboard the US Navy Warship that is about to sink her. I did reenter my post and it is more professional. You have to understand, we are proud of what we do and proud to be the ones to lay her to rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chovi lalita (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Chovi, no offence taken at all and I understand your excitement. Thank you for re writing your contribution, it looks much better.
 * Good luck with your ship sinking Fraggle81 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Dan Mullasseril
Dan is a kid who likes neon pink. That is all. Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantheman567 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats nice. And this is my concern why? Fraggle81 (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Good faith sarcasm
I know you are inocent. But this made my day :) Cheers! FkpCascais (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki!

 * I'll also note that based on my screen resolution, your user-page and awards section prove a little hard to navigate. Because the award "hidden" block has no title or background color, I didn't even know it was there. Typically, one might notice the "show" link. However, due to whatever CSS messiness, this "show" link shows up inside your right-hand-side list of navigational boxes. Right now, "show" is *inside* (technically, overlapping) the userbox where Huggle displays threat levels. You might want to look into the "clear" templates? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the Barnstar, I will display it with pride on my new awards page . I've had a bit of a rethink on my user page and gone for something a bit simpler, hopefully everything displays correctly now. Fraggle81 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations from STiki (x2)

 * You inspired me to create another threshold. For 50,000 classifications; you deserve both this award as well as that I gave you a few days ago. As I promised, any award would be retroactively granted. Keep up the good work. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

lulz killer

 * I also assassinate circus clowns in my spare time Fraggle81 (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fourth Crusade
Hey! I was curious as to why you changed my edit to the Forth Crusade? I changed the date to the dates listed in a book written in the Middle Ages by one of the leaders of this crusade. I tried to cite the book but I may have done it wrong.143.200.89.148 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC) HD


 * Hi, ok there are two problems here, the first is that you added the four ~ to your edit. You only need do this after writing something on a talk page. The second is that the information you are adding needs a reference from a reliable source. I'll leave a welcome message on your talk page which should help you get started. Fraggle81 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhh!! Okay! Thanks! Ill go back and try to do it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.89.148 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Cult of Skaro
Regarding my change to that page, there was a hyphen on that page that was being used as an emdash. I find that my edit was necessary and hardly find that there was any reason for you to revert it. –70.227.174.236 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Betatron
I commented on the subject article to bring attention to the following statement: § "a Betatron was also used to provide electrons converted into neutrons" ... which is nonsense. As I wrote, there is no process by which electrons are converted to neutrons. The weapon-test cited in the article clearly states (correctly) that the Betatron's electron-beam was used to generate high-energy X-rays (NOT NEUTRONS) which initiated fission. Please forward this message to an editor with some knowledge of Physics who can properly edit the article. 67.233.255.149 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please use the articles talk page rather than leaving comments on the article itself. I will copy your comments to the articles talkspace. Fraggle81 (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Clive Palmer (Business man)
PLEASE EXPLAIN - rm puffery  Ben J MacDonald (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly I'd like to know why you took it upon yourself to delete parts of my talk page. This would appear to be vandalism. As for the for the edits I made on your changes to Clive Palmer I felt some of the details were unnecessary in the context of the article and seemed more like a promotional pr piece than something that should be in an encyclopedia. Also since it's the holidays and I have a life off wiki the whole "PLEASE EXPLAIN" thing is slightly unnecessary. If I dont reply maybe its because im busy. Whether I'm busy or not I will reply in my own time. Fraggle81 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: Snuggler IRC office hour - Friday, Jan. 4th
See you there! -- EpochFail (talk 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Friday, Jan. 4th at 1700 UTC/11AM CST
 * #wikimedia-office