User talk:Mauler90/Archives/2008/07

No worries!
I always check vandals to see if they vandalised elsewhere, and followed this one over to your page, and fixed it. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A "new" article for Malik Obama
is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myselfhere even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weigh in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow  06:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
Hi there. I noticed you reverted this edit to Curtis Manning. Note that their edit was not vandalism at all. In future, please take more care before you revert edits of anonymous users. I have found that assuming bad faith to anonymous users generally pushes these new users away. In future, take more care and look at the edit before you hit the revert button. Steve Crossin  (contact)  07:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yeah. Its been a while since I have seen 24 (dang writers strike) but I reverted that because I thought I remembered him surviving, but I see that I was wrong, my bad.  At least I didn't put a warning on their talk page!  mauler90 (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Catholic League
Don't be a fool. My edit was accurate. 1 in 25 Catholic priests or other symbols of power are likely to have been involved in molesting a child yet the Catholic League is up in arms over a freakin' cracker instead. They need to gain some perspective, silly twits. I'm reverting your edit to my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by76.177.143.154 (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit has been removed as vandalism. The Catholic League (U.S.) is not affiliated with the site you have repeatedly added (1 and 2).  mauler90 (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Bulbous
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.


 * Right, because I restored the page. Please don't spam my talk page. (Also see) --mauler90 (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:Vandal. It spells out what is and what is not vandalism. Please also note that this policy specifically grants users the right to blank their pages. Not only that, the point of my doing so in this case was to cease an argument with a disruptive user. Bulbous (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats fine and you have that right. But I suggest instead of blanking your page you report the user if you feel they are harassing you.--mauler90 (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't much care to do anything except cut it off before it got out of hand. But thanks for your advice. Bulbous (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can viewthis page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! PeterSymonds (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC) --PeterSymonds  (talk)  07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.
 * Thanks! --mauler90 (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)