User talk:Kukini/Archive17

Removal of templates
Just so you know, I dont have a problem with your checklist, but I do have a bit of one with your template. Community consensus is, and has been for a while, that users are free to remove these templates and warnings at their discretion, the removal being verification they were read. - M  ask?  18:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, works out perfectly then :) Yes, I archive mine because I like them to be open to all to see if they wish (but not have a 500-topic talkpage). Good to know that it'll push that idea, I was just worried a bit about it sounding like it was the only way. - M  ask?  19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

HELP ME PLEASE
dude please talk to me not many people have acautualy talked to me I have been looking for advice please tell me how to copy pictures and put infrmation into the site--Sodaman 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurów
Could you please write a stub about my hometown on HWC language here - just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w ? Only 3-5 sentences enough. Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already on 180 languages. If your village/town/city hasn't on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of requests) Pietras1988   TALK  08:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for changing my starworks thing back! That was real nice of you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 123.2.138.254 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Alright
If you are talking about what I think you are, I am sorry I was just feeling angry at everyone, but then I decided to revert my own changes because lots of people would get upset, and it would be reverted soon anyway. Cool?All.ya.little.triksters 06:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Usernameblock
Hi there. I switched off ACB on this guy as, strictly speaking, only the username is at fault here. Hope you don't mind! - A l is o n  ☺ 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg
Hello, Kukini. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Kukini/Archive4. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this picture was part of User:Humus sapiens's RfA thank you. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I got a notice about it also.--Dakota 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page! Much appreciated :) – Rianaऋ 10:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit advice
Hiya Kukini, thanks for the advice regarding edit summaries. It is something I will have to work on in future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spathi (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Edit Summaries
I realize that some people consider it an issue of style on Wikipedia. If you end up making multiple edits to an article in the same session (ie. you edit it, read it over, re-edit it), would you suggest an edit summary each time?

That being said, I wasn't meeting even that standard of editing, so I'll work on it. Chantoke 06:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting vandalism on the P!nk page; you beat me to itDJSEDISTICAL 06:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
For that final vandalism/nonsense warning to User:I AM BORED. This nonsense has gone on long enough. I also have a suspicion that User:I AM BORED and User:VivaLaZombie! maybe also be sockpuppet accounts of the same person, as they "each" created hoax anarchism articles that were virtually identical in style. How could I check to see if they are in fact sockpuppets? Thank you, Shawn in Montreal 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I stole your greeting
Hi, I hope you don't mind but I used your wonderful welcome message to welcome a new editor (I gave you credit for it). I loved it so much when you greeted me and I needed something better than simply saying "welcome" in this particular case. Just for your info, I have loved wp since the day you greeted me. I have made some useful contributions, some overthetop reactions and probably caused more havock than honey but I am trying. Thanks again and let me know if you have any objections to me using your greeting. Abtract 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

User:24.178.84.130
This user is at it again. They just blanked the Shakespeare page. Wrad 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Question
Could you take a look at ? Thanks! -- T Talk to me 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. I was just wondering if you saw any mistakes or ways to improve it. Thank you! -- T Talk to me 12:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

go away
I am not trying to hide anything...I just want a clean page, all those messages are either completely useless or from so long ago they bear no validity to me. please stop wikistalking me.--Caligvla 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting accusation. I will continue to monitor these edits for further POV pushing and blanking of verified content. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not pushing any kind of POV, just pull out any reference book of your choosing and let me know if any of them place Armenia in Europe? That Article has been hijacked by a well organized group of POV pushers, and sometimes the only way to correct an article is the proper and legitimate use of WP:Ignore. Please check the facts before making unjust accusations.--Caligvla 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The blanking of warnings on talk pages accompanied by blanking of content that is referenced instead of discussing the issue on the talk page, or making a "controversy" section in the article is actually quite disruptive. I just looked at a number of maps. This seems to be a pretty controversial issue. Here is a map to illuminate another view than yours . Due to that, I think it is time to make a controversy section in Armenia. K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hardly see any controversy, every reference book on earth places Armenia in Asia Minor, Some poorly run web-site could hardly stand to question the credibility of the CIA Factbook, Oxford English Dictionary, and the official position of the Armenian Government. This has been discussed to death over and over and over through RfCs etc. It doesn't change the fact that the article has been hijacked for a very very long time by the same group of POV pushers. Going through proper channels has not achieved anything.--Caligvla 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * how can I contact you off wiki?--Caligvla 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * clearly there is still disagreement on this issue. I would prefer to discuss this openly and do not feel comfortable discussing it on your talk page, as you blank instead of archiving.  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Kukini I notice you have talked to Isenhand about deleting stuff from the Technocratic movement
I have given up for a while trying to present material on the Technocratic movement page but have attempted to do that again today. Isenhand and Hibernian and Technocrate all have removed stuff from my edits. To catch up on that check out the talk page for the Technoratic movement and wafulz`s commentary. Also I have created a page called Technocracy Study Course could you review that for me. I have not done this before and am new on Wiki. Thanks, (Skipsievert 17:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks
Thanks for the gentle pointer about the edit summaries. I'll make sure to make use of those in future edits. IMWeazel 00:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Change of signature
You said on my talk page that I had removed someone's signature and replaced it with mine. I did, but purely by accident (I accidently deleted my message+ appearently your signature). I immediately put my message back in, but I forgot to restore your signature, because I didnt notice I had deleted that as well. I am sorry and it wn't happen again.--Merijn2 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

help
(Result: Stale)???? what does that mean????--Caligvla 03:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculously Late Thanks
Hi, Kukini! Nearly a year ago, you suggested on my IP talk page that I become a member. I signed up the very same day, but for some reason I never got around to even thanking you for the suggestion! Please accept this admittedly very, very late message as a humble "thank you" note :) --Kuaichik 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, it is also rare that an admin I thank actually replies! Thank you again! --Kuaichik 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerome State Historic Park
Thanks for putting in the Reference section, which I stupidly forgot to do.

Cheers, Pete Tillman 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My talk page
I reserve the right to edit my own talk page, thank you. Please don't alter edits I have made to it. As an admin, you should be aware of this. So why did you feel it necessary to change my user page?82.32.238.139 05:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome to Wikipedia message!
Hi Kukini,

Firstly thank you so much for your welcome to Wikipedia message, I appreciate the immediate support and resources!

Unfortunately Alabamaboy removed the page with a speedy deletion. I posted a message to him but without success. My message was;

''Hi Alabamaboy, ''Sorry that you deemed the article to be an ad. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I tried not to 'advertise' our Company and just list the facts. I obviously did not achieve this and kindly request your assistance in rectifying this.'' ''I thought I followed the wiki-guidelines correctly (content, logo, etc.) and I also referred to existing Wiki-Company pages for examples of content and lay-out; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Data_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabobank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_Hermes I am not sure what the protocol is here, but I would really appreciate your guidance.'' Thanking you in advance, Atradius 10:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have since prepared a new user page but am wary to post just to have it removed again. Would you be so kind to review the content, possibly give me some guidance and feedback? I would very much appreciate your assistance.

Many thanks in advance, --Atradius 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation :)
Sorry for the late response. I just wanted to admit that I've only contacted two administrators before (other than you). One of them didn't bother to respond to a small thank-you note I sent regarding a "tone tag" he had placed on a very POV article. That's all.

I still consider him a nice person, though, so I haven't come to any conclusion that admins are not friendly overall :) --Kuaichik 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

?
Hello Kukini. I got a message from you (I think) about vandalism on an iBot page or something and was warned that if it continues, i could be blocked. i'm not actaully logged in and i've never even been to that page. how could i vandalize it? could someone have the same IP adress as me or something? sorry, i'm just terribly confused.

67.137.24.132 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Count Dukie67.137.24.132 20:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rudy Gatlin
You revised List of Texas Tech University people stating "updating dead link" for Rudy Gatlin. I checked the old link. It works fine and that article specifically mentions that Rudy attended Tech. Your updated link doesn't mention Tech at all. Unless you have a compelling reason for me to do otherwise, I'm going to restore the original link. Thanks! --Wordbuilder 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I get when I go to that link is the following:

"Registration is required for full access to The LubbockOnline Network. As I am not registered to LubbockOnline, the link looks more or less like nothing. As registration is "free," perhaps we can mention that on the footnote? -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 16:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have previously registered, please use the login box on the right side of this screen.
 * If you do not have a user account, please register below. Registration is free. Register now.
 * If you have questions or if you are experiencing any difficulty, please check the registration FAQ. If you're still have questions, please use the appropriate link on the right side of this page."
 * Okay, that makes sense. I registered awhile back. It must have put a cookie on my system; because, whenever I visit the article, I'm not prompted to log-in. I will make a note of the required free registration. Thanks for the help and keep up the good work. --Wordbuilder 20:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

UCW
Seems borderline at best, but I decided to leave it alone when I was looking over Thomas cox84's other contributions. No objections here if references aren't found and you decide to AfD it. Thanks for asking. -- Finngall  talk  20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

not true
mam the changes you are making to kell high school are not true this is said by Coachenglish —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachenglish (talk • contribs)

Coachenglish
You recently blocked. I just found an entry about him on WP:AIV and honestly can't see simple vandalism - but I am sure there is more than is visible to a drive-by admin. Could you take a look at the current situation? Agathoclea 20:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Clayderman
Deletions to talk page as per Biographies_of_living_persons. Your changes have been reverted. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can do as I like on my own talk page. Please note that I am not a novice user. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits belie your actions comments. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "My edits belie my actions"? What in the world is that supposed to mean. My edits on Richard Clayderman are entirely consistent with the Wikipedia policy on Biogs of Living Persons which states that defamatory material must be removed immediately. The material I removed was defamatory. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking over the discussion you deleted, your use of the term "defamatory" is quite questionable, particularly in a talk page. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "...a banalization faggot..."; "his musical reductions of classics suck real bad"; "his whole carreer is based on misleading ignorant people". Not defamatory? Plus the talk page is for discussing the article and its structure, not the subject. The section in the main article was completely unsourced and thus should be removed according to to policy on biogs of living people. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "ALPHABETICAL OR CHRONOLOGICAL?" "Wouldn't it be more informative if the discography had been chronological rather than alphabetical?" Perhaps a tad overzealous in deleting, no?  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Besides he is handsome..." Seemed a gratuitous entry. OK, well if that's the only response you have (plus the fact that I once, accidetally posted a warning on a user page instead of a talk page - if you had looked you would have seen I usually place them on talk pages) you can revert that particular section. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Harry was a white dog with black spots
In this edit, User:Harry was a white dog with black spots has given a "final" warning to a user that has never made a single edit, as per her/his edit history. I asked him/her to be more careful, and also, not give "final" notices to people prior to a notice or two before that "final" notice. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that this user had made many anonymous edits using a variety of IPs, all of which have had final warnings. You should be careful about making accusations without knowingt the full facts. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Notices are to be given on those IP addresses. Not anywhere else. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that it became obvious on the discussion about the deletion of the page that this user was the one that had been making the anonymous edits, so therefore a warning was considered appropriate. Your behaviour is beginning to constitute harrassment. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Obvious" only to the above user. Note the blanking of comments in AfD by this user's sockpuppet: -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I explained why I deleted those comments. Others disagreed with me, so the comments were restored and I put my comments as a response. That is how things should be done on Wikpedia, by consensus, not by harrassing other users. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This type of behavior, on top of blanking of then ignoring notices generally results in blocking from editing. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 17:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first "notice" was about my editing of Richard Clayderman. My edits were entirely appropriate under biogs of living people policies. So of course I ignored it Your further "warnings" seemed to be attempts to find fault where there was none. It is not considered good form to issue warnings without knowing all the facts. I expect this to stop now. Otherwise I will consider it harrassment. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Could you look over Church of Scientology. One editor claims POV pushing and I'm saying they're removing sourced material. ~ Wi ki  her mit  (HermesBot) 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the Diff to it. Thanks. COFS 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you two, I don't have time to deal with this right now, but if it is still not settled when I get back, I will look into it. Best, -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We settled, thanks! COFS 03:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage. However, it seems the user in question is rolling ips to continue vandalising!. Francisco Tevez 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My userpage is under attack again!. Francisco Tevez 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If it continues. Yes, but it looks like the same person is hoping Ips to evade your blocks. :P. Francisco Tevez 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Indech
Ok, I'll try my best on doing it, since I'm not used to this. I'm a bureaucrat at the pt.wiki, so nobody get much worried about my edits... ;) Indech 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals
I know how to warn vandals. I just don't do it when I'm not sure whether the edit was vandalism, or for anonymous users, about 20 minutes after the vandalism occurred in case it is a shared IP. I rarely do deliberate vandal fighting; I revert vandalism as it comes on my watchlist so I may find it many hours after it happens, and with unregistered editors, warnings are useless then. Graham 87 08:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spacing
Also, what was the reasoning behind this edit? I remember finding that vandalism and realising that the spacing had changed. I didn't think the change of spacing warranted a revert. How did the change of spacing affect what was on the screen? I navigate Wikipedia with a screen reader and a speech synthesizer so I don't notice the difference. Graham 87 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WILL YOU STOP IT
I ASKED YOU BEFORE, AND YOU HAVE BLITHELY IGNORED ME. I REPEAT, STOP EDITING MY TALK PAGE. IF I CHOSE TO REMOVE A MESSAGE, THAT'S MY PEROGATIVE. YOU ARE AN ADMIN, YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER. DO IT AGIN, AND I'M REPORTING YOU.

YOU WROTE THIS AT THE TOP OF YOUR PAGE

ATTENTION VANDALS: Vandalizing this page or any other page on Wikipedia is not productive. Vandalism is soon reverted or removed by other Wikipedians so don't bother, ok? - Kukini

HOW ABOUT YOU STOP VANDALIZING MY TALK PAGE? 82.32.238.139 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleting notices on an IP talk page does not mean that you have not been given notice for previous problematic nor vandalizing edits. Please consider avoiding such edits in the future. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Read the history and you'll see that Clio was fine with it. It was not a problematic edit, nor was it vandalism.  Jesus, go and do some proper editing - how about you try write an articel adn put your energies into something constructive.  82.32.238.139 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * AND - you still haven't explained why you replaced the notice when I had removed it and notified you on your talk page that I didn't want it back. I consider that vandalism - what do you call it? 82.32.238.139 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you?
As I pointed out to you above, and will do so again, it is not against Wikipedia policy for editors to edit their own talk pages. This is what I have done, quite within my rights. It's not a test. I am removing a message from my talk page that I don't want to be there. It's none of your goddamn business, so butt out. I add, once again, for your information, this link:. PLEASE READ IT AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT. 82.32.238.139 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As you wish, although uncivil language, "yelling" with caps, and threatening are not at all within the parameters of propriety on wikipedia. I will leave this message on my talk page as well, as I archive, and I fear you will delete this comment as soon as I post it. As the link states, archiving is preferred. Regardless, the notices are on record on the talk page history. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the threat? 82.32.238.139 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly admitting to the lack of civility. Happy editing. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my god you need some lessons in logic. Where have I "clearly admitted to a lack of uncivility"?  And how is that a threat? 82.32.238.139 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also - I used caps to get you attention. My messsage of 29 May was IGNORED by you, so I reckoned you might pay attention this way. 82.32.238.139 20:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "I will leave this message on my talk page as well, as I archive, and I fear you will delete this comment as soon as I post it." The hypocrisy! Unlike you, I don't mess around with other people's talk pages.  I only delete from my own. 82.32.238.139 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, although I prefer to not yell at people or tell them to butt out and so forth. Clearly, you feel a sense of "ownership" over this talk page. Sorry to ruffle your feathers. Time to move on. I understand you will likely feel a need to delete this right away. If you do decide to archive this talk page instead and want help doing so, do not hesitate to ask. Happy editing. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 20:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mustache May
As to your concern of citations, I'm working on gathering the information. However, if you consider the size, popularity, and traffic of the article, I don't see much harm in leaving it until published sources can be acquired. The event is very new and has yet to be fully documented.Mamoru1011 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The event is to become annual, and is therefor noteworthy.Mamoru1011 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

More vandalism from USER:I AM BORED
Hi you issued a final warning for vandalism to USER:I AM BORED on May 12 but he continued to engage in obscene vandalism on June 2. See:. Thank you, Shawn in Montreal 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I AM BORED's vandalism on June 2 came after your "final" warning on May 12, which I thought would have made a block automatic. But if you wish to wait for him to do it yet again, then of course that's your perogative. Many thanks, Shawn in Montreal 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohh I am so sorry, I vandalled Wikipedia pages, you blocked me yesterday. Good work! --88.233.241.41 06:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

IP socks
I noticed you have commented on this talk page. This IP, along with bunch of others listed here is a sock of User:Tajik, he has been attacking users on Talk:Safavid dynasty page, revert warring, and I am not sure, how relevant this is in case of a sock, but violating 3RR as well here:, , ,. The user is challenging any form of order in Wikipedia. Atabek 18:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jiggawugga
Thanks for the edit summary tip, sounds like a great feature. I will be sure to read up on it before I make any more edits! Jiggawugga 23:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dunno
I didn't do that on purpose, must have been an accident or something. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 23:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies
I apologize for my comments. However, I only used that tone with a user who is a blocked vandal and has already tried to force his POV edits through sockpuppet accounts and anonymous IP's. Despite his ban, he still uses my talk page to post remarks that lack quality in English and, in some cases, are offensive. He has already been deemed as unwelcome by other editors and administrators.

I appreciate your concern in maintaining civility in Wikipedia. However, this irreflexive person is the one who lacks this civility. You are more than welcome to review my posts and the whole history of this argument.--Schonbrunn 04:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the pointers you left on my talk page. I'll keep them in mind as I continue contributing to Wikipedia.  The IP's you saw were not blocked, but several sockpuppet accounts used by the user hiding behind those IP's are.--Schonbrunn 00:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Conceit: what a concept
208.120.227.250 07:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)"Conceit" is correctly used. I say this with confidence, as the user who put it there long ago. Any online dictionary will confirm the word's meaning, and a look at the MAD page's history will show that the word has survived a large number of edits for more than a year. Your instant "edit war" assessment is inaccurate, and does not show good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.227.250 (talk • contribs)

please do not revert good faith edits (re: Heather Wendorf)
Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly. 71.155.212.206 09:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The main reason your edit was reverted was that it made a number of substantive changes with no edit summary (aside from a row of ~). Edits like this with no edit summary from IP editors with no edit history are often little more than vandalism. For this reason, your edit did not appear to be in "good faith." You seem to be doing better as you are now also using the talk page. Happy editing. -- K u k i ni  hablame aqui 15:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that you didn't look at the edits prior to reverting? 71.155.212.206 19:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you are not correct to assume that. Please begin using the edit summaries as soon as you can.  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you read the edits, saw that they were legit, but reverted them anyway? Isn't that opposed to the guidance on reverting (above), which begins by stating "Please do not revert good faith edits"? 71.155.212.206 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, edits with no edit summaries from IP editors with little edit histories do NOT appear legit at face and thus do not come across as in good faith. Why not drop this and begin adding usefully to wikipedia, as you claim to have been doing in the first place?  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how it may have appeared to you without an edit summary, you indicated that you read the edits. Therefore, you must have known that they were legit and you violated Wiki policy by reverting a good-faith edit. Regarding your suggestion that I begin adding usefully to Wikipedia, that is obviously what I did when I made the original edits. Perhaps you should simply admit your mistake, apologize, quit trying to justify your actions by blaming me and refrain from doing it again.71.155.212.206 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

heteronormativity
Hi. I posted some questions regarding your reversion of the heteronormativity section to the version with the Defense section with substantial POV and grammar problems. Could you please take a look and explain your reasoning for keeping the section? It's been flagged for POV, called a "rant", and deleted multiple times, which is merely "being bold", not vandalism in this case. It seems that you have done this before with good faith edits and I agree with the poster above me. I was not trying to hurt wiki, but to help it by getting rid of the type of material that gives it a very bad name. Jmsast 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The dif in question is here and was made by User:24.90.229.107 with absolutely no edit summary to explain the deleting of a very large section. Such deletes are made constantly by IP vandals. It appeared to be vandalism in the manner it was deleted. If you, or anyone else, for that matter deletes the section with explanation in the edit summary as well as in the talk page, it will not be taken as vandalism. The revert was done in good faith, based on what I saw and explained above. I stand behind that action and will also stand behind the same material being deleted if done within the community in an appropriate fashion. Thanks for asking,  K u k i ni  hablame aqui 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)