User talk:Uncle Dick/Archive 1

Welcome! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! ~EdGl  &#9733;  20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

The Last Airbender
Can you please be more specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.157.147 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
✅ But go steady - This was not clear-cut vandalism. Also, whilst there is no requirement, it might be worth putting at least a minor comment on your user page to turn the link to it blue - very much not a big deal and don't if you do not wish to, but some editors seem to be prejudiced against red linked user pages. Please review WP:RBK and ask me if you need any help with the rollback tool. Happy editing. Pedro : Chat  20:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Template:911ct, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards —  Cs32en  08:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Uncle Dick. Why don't you have a user page? Webster6 Yo, So 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not say that. -- Darren•M540 U|T|C 13:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Why not? 78.148.99.130 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the question (and any answer) would encourage people to stuff beans up their nose (or, more likely, worse). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Your welcome

for this, this and this (although, technically, that last one was aimed at you :) ), Plus whatever else you've done in this same regard that I may have overlooked.  See ya 'round.  Tide  rolls  20:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Little Ferry, New Jersey
Hi. I answered on my discussion page --Alexkin (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hitler Game
I ask that you read the talk page on the hitler game article before you request sppedy delete, also try searching on google. You will find a large amount of forums and chat logs of people playing it. I'd like a prompt response, also in future could you contact me beforehand with regards to removing my contributions --Nialljames (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me google that for you

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&q=hitler+wikipedia+game

Now tell me there are no sources. You seem to think its made up. Its not.

--Nialljames (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Nialljames, there are apparently no reliable sources. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. tedder (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Then how am I supposed to find sources for a game that 'IS ENTIRLEY BASED ON FORUM USE'. The game was invented and is played via the use of forums, the link above shows a huge amount of threads on tons of diffrent forums about the game. Also the game gets played a lot of the time on /b/ but seeing as no official records are kept then there is no possible way of proving this. I ask you why you assums that thousands of posts on various diffrent forums by various diffrent users is not evidence enough that the game at least exist in the underground? --Nialljames (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

i dont know how to make my own (talk) so i just went on this persons. Dear Uncle Dick i am sorry about those change my sister was on my computer writing messages to her friends and me. i have talked to her about this i hope it never happens again. if you actually read this message will you noteify me about that like send me a letter like the ones telling me about George Patton. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.252.104 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Kaerosea 08:00 Nooooo Yesssssssss 123456788910 No —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.178.21 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ELCA Page
hey, I am trying to fix Eagles Landing Christian Academy. I am a alum and I have real information. Please don't change it. - Buzzboygt (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Robert Reich
Stop reverting me - it was properly cited, so it isn't vandalism. Okay? 199.88.20.8 (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I was just vandalizing the pages to prove how accurate and fast Wikipedia was, even if you just change one letter. thank you for being so-cooperative and helping me win $5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.54.6 (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
...for reverting vandalism on my talk page. I appreciate that. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 04:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Page balnking
Hello, it's actually OK for a new article creator to blank the page. It's one way to request deletion. You can just tag for deletion under WP:CSD G7. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page


Jojhutton has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Name
Is that the Uncle Dick of that'll keep the little bastards quiet fame? Fainites barley scribs 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Vh1-fac
Hi

I reverted your revert on Talk:Kytrell McDonald. I really don't believe that the edit was vandalism. The editor is struggling to come to terms with their editor being tagged for deletion, and I directed them to the talk page instead of posting elsewhere. The comment they were modifying was their own, which I had copied from the main article. Granted, they should probably have added a new response lower down, but their actions were, I feel, understandable for a newbie.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Right you are. I rescind my warning. Thanks for the correction. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks. I noticed this editor when they posted at Abuse filter/False positives - it looks like they don't have much of an understanding about Wikipedia, and need a helping hand! I've posted some pointers to them, and I guess I'm unofficially looking out for them until they find their feet. Anyway, thanks again! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your problem
What is it Dick? Italics not allowed now? Or fixing redirects=warnings? What are you all at? --86.40.209.112 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Fuking fat bastard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.135.95 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious, on why an edit of mine was reverted?
I was looking up the page on lever action, and noticed, that few words had been replaced with the word "penis". (There's no such thing as lever action penis, AFAIK.) So I replace the words with appropriate one, save one I didn't know the correct word for, added the reason for editing, saved the page and patted myself on the back for a job well done.

Only to get this message...

"The recent edit you made to the page Lever-action has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary."

I believe I did exactly so; so what went wrong? The page appears non-penised, so I'm wondering if I just edited it as someone else was editing it? Uncle Dick, perhaps?

Jarska (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I assume that you are 88.193.45.161? I mistook your edits for vandalism when, in fact, you were trying to revert some of it. I rescind my warning and apologize for the inconvenience. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your revert
You reverted my addition of sourced encyclopedic information in the article Supply-side economics, without any explanation or justification. I explained my edits with edit summaries but received absolutely no response from you. Please explain your edit or it will be assumed, per Wikipedia policies, as blanking vandalism. Please also note that "Huggle" is an anti-vandalism tool, and is inappropriate in reverting edits of good intentions. 202.40.139.171 (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also this edit, in which I summarized the criticism of Reaganomics in the introduction. A summary for criticism is recommended by WP:MOS. I could not understand how one would disagree with my edit, and I could not understand how one would perceive it as vandalism. Please read WP:VANDAL. 202.40.139.171 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your unsourced, anonymous edits to Wikipedia do not appear to be constructive, however, it appears that an administrator feels otherwise, so we'll take it to the talk pages for each article. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You may feel that they are not constructive, but they are clearly not vandalism, and does not justify your various warnings for vandalism, nor your unexplained reverts. I see that there are many similar complaints in your talk page, and out of concern, have looked into your editing history. While you have done some very diligent work, there appears to be a high number of reverts of good edits, or edits that may not be constructive but are not vandalism. In essential, the difference is of whether or not the user has demonstrated good intentions. In my case, my edits were clearly serious, and I have used edit summaries, so good intentions were demonstrated. Please, as I suggested, read WP:VANDAL carefully and learn the difference between vandalism and content edits. Please also read related Wikipedia policies on good faith and edit summaries, and in the future, use edit summaries when trying to revert an edit, especially if the other user has used edit summaries himself.
 * I don't want to be harsh or sound condescending, but users like you who revert without looking carefully and without understanding basic Wikipedia policies does a lot of harm to the project. Your work is very much appreciated, but understand that the vast majority of bad reverts will go unnoticed, or will be a source of distress to the work of contributors, especially when you refuse to explain your reverts promptly.
 * Now, about the content of my edits. I have reverted your removals as of now, as I doubt very few people will actually disagree with my work. First, they are sourced. They are just not sourced sentence-by-sentence. My edits in question were in fact summaries of the criticism section of several articles, e.g. Supply-side economics and Reaganomics. The criticism sections tend to be much more detailed and carefully sourced already. Also, in some cases, the content of my edit was already present in an original source in the paragraph. I confess there are some cases where a part of the information is not sourced, but you did not give me the time for it, and I will hopefully be able to source it soon. Nonetheless, this is no substantial grounds for a revert, without any explanation or discussion. 202.40.139.171 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, it's funny. For some reason vandals never admit that their edits are vandalism. Particularly those who attempt to obfuscate the nature of their bad faith edits. You've contributed enough to know that your edits have violated the spirit of WP:VANDAL, if not the letter, so it's particularly rich that you feel the need to lash out on my talk page. And it's also interesting that when I do make editing mistakes, those I've offended are always conciliatory in their efforts to point out my errors. It's only the vandals who feel the need to carp on and on about Wikipedia policies. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please carefully explain why this large paragraph I added in Reaganomics is vandalism. What I presented was the consensus of many economists, which were cited later in the article. Give me a substantial argument instead of ignoring my edit summaries then personally attacking me.
 * Please also carefully explain why this edit is vandalism. "Serious economists" might sound like POV, but in this case it is undoubtedly a fact. Economists such as Nobel Prize laureate Paul Krugman are serious economists, who have such a consensus. On the other hand, "non-serious" economists are those without any significant contributions in the field of economics. If you can come up with a better term to distinguish those economists with credibility in the academic field, then say it. Regardless of all that, and even if my edit was faulty, it definitely does not constitute vandalism. Vandalism requires bad faith, I have demonstrated good faith.
 * Lastly, explain why this edit is vandalism. The Washington Times regards itself as a conservative newspaper. Indeed, its founder's stated goal was to spread the "message of [the Christian] God" to the world, and he believes himself to be the Messiah and the Second Coming of Christ. These are all simple facts that you can find by simply clicking through to their articles, instead of blindly reverting something you don't know about. On the other hand, "accusations" is, by consensus, not a POV word. Just find a featured article and search for "accusations" or variants in it. 202.40.139.171 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Uncle Dick, You just violated the 3rr on a subject that was not blatant vandalism, as has the anon, just a note, I suggest you both take some time to think and refrain from editing the page in future. All the best SpitfireTally-ho! 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey, glad to know it was a honest mistake, thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made two reverts in each of the two articles, while User Uncle Dick has made three reverts in one, and two reverts in another one. Neither of us has technically violated the 3RR, although I understand that the spirit of the rule is that no user should revert another user's content edit without consensus. I reinstated the removed content with the expectations that User Uncle Dick has agreed to them - I could not have expected the user to have such a flawed understanding of basic Wikipedia policies, given his long history of editing. Anyhow, I will refrain from editing these pages until the user finishes reading WP:VANDAL, WP:AGF, WP:ES and WP:NPOV. 202.40.139.171 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Boo Berry Page?
I would just like to ask why you would delete the Boo Berry page that was made. The creation of that page was by no means vandalism, but rather simply an addition of a more in-depth article about Boo Berry cereal, which deserves to have it's own article as opposed to being lumped in with all the other General Mills Monster Cereals. If you would like, i would be willing to create a full in-depth page for EACH of these, if that will convince you to leave up the Boo Berry page. That page was completely legitimate; it even had references whence i retrieved much of the information (sites such as the unofficial Boo Berry Page). I should not have recieved any warnings for the creation of this page, for it is by NO MEANS vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBeardface (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Point
First, get a clue. Second the consensus at WP:PW is to leave it until the is official confirmation. Third, read WP:BRD. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We go by consensus, and the consensus is to wait, you edit to Unforgiven were reverted by a different editor, if you make two edits which are reverted by two different editors then you have to conclude you are in the wrong. Discuss it at the project before making any more edits. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian English
I'm cleaning up Indian English. Please wait till I finish. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for the revert on my userpage. :) &rarr;  Dylan 620  (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 20:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

King David Hotel bombing
Well that was spectacular. I've blamed similar incidents on my ferrets. What was your excuse?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Huggle. And a computer that's slower than molasses. I also accidentally warned a user who hasn't edited in six years. I'm sure he won't mind. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. I've never used Huggle. Given that my broadband is playing up, it sounds like it could produce an interesting effect. (If the connection hadn't gone, I would have had my revert of your heca-revert in before you. I had decided against warnign you anyway as it had the marks of an accident all over it.)--Peter cohen (talk)

Thanks
For reverting vandal on my talk page. BigDunc Talk 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism strikes again
Google "Haley" and check out the second result.  Enigma msg  21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Santino/a Marella
Sorry, I didn't actually see RAW and was just going based on what the results from the source said. I probably should have just used common sense as everyone knows it was the same person...except for that one IP for some reason... Bmg 916 Speak 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism!?
Please do not assume my edits are vandalism and then leave a faceless generic warning on my talk page. WP:CIVIL

Also, please do not engage in 3RR+ edit warring when I am simply implementing a change that is recommended on the talk page. --82.25.66.205 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism
OK, I know you're a huggle-Nazi so you're having your fun, but this is my talk page, not yours, so I decide what's on there, not you. OK? How about actually READING what I've written before you go prancing about calling vandalism. I could do the same to you and you wouldn't like it. I'll remove your warnings, but if you replace them, I'll be asking another Admin for assistance. --82.25.66.205 (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Threatening me
Maybe you'd like to think twice about issuing threats on my talk page; that's the kind of behaviour that could get you banned for good. And while you're at it how about qualifying what you mean by "Vandalism". You still haven't done that, huggle-meister. Pointing at innnocent users and shouting "vandal" is a sign of extreme immaturity.--82.25.66.205 (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this in recent changes. To the IP, remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. To Uncle Dick, the IPs edits seem to be in good faith and do not seem to be vandalism, especially when reading the context of the article. The section being labeled referred only to the US usage of the term, as opposed to the usage in other countries referred to earlier in the article. Anyways, cool down you two, arguing gets us nowhere in a collaborative project. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the last three edits 82.25.66.205 made to Pop quiz could be construed as good faith edits, despite a lack of citations, but user's contribution history indicates a vandalism-heavy account. The first edit made by the IP user to Pop quiz here was a speedy deletion request for a four-year old article with the summary "what a crock of old shit". Please see also the following edits: 1 and 2. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. It's probably not worth getting into 3RR over though. It would probably just be best to discuss the edits with the IP. Inferno,  Lord of   Penguins  17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So posting here again counts as personal attack #2?

back linking
why somtimes when i post a link it turns up red?

kHS Vandalism
the edits on the kirkcaldy high school page aren't vandalism, instead i was removing vandalism and you just reverted it back to the vandils hands.

please read through a page properly first and undo the vandals edits. not the person who is trying to fix it

thank you.

Reversion
I reverted an edit that replaced the Etymology section of Mullet (haircut) with something like "mullet freak". Why did you warn me about vandalism? Kotiwalo (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, you fixed it already. Thanks =) Kotiwalo (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem with User 66.67.66.55
I noticed you had reverted the edits of, I have had run-ins with this user before, as they seem to be determined to change Lindsay Monroe to Messer at every opportunity. I have reported them, and there was a small block given - but as you can see, they are back. I do not think they will make the mistake of violating 3RR again, but I have reported them to an Admin I trust (I'm sorry - are you also an admin? I have not read enough of your archive to be sure). I am simply writing you to let you know of prior problems with this person, and warn you they are likely to continue this behaviour until they are blocked completely. Their sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be changing Lindsay Monroe's name. Cheers, Trista (User Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work} 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. And, no, I'm not an admin. The Wiki community is too smart to allow that. ;) Uncle Dick (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with your statement, sir - but understand it completely! Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiout
Wuh Wuz  Dat  18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)