User talk:Wiki13/Archive 1

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page! Cheers! Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, Wiki13 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you!  Wiki13 (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide sources
On page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space:_Above_and_Beyond the contributor provided no sources. the section is high speculative and presented as fact. Unless you plan to provide the sources for the contributor the section should rightfully be removed. Please provide sources or stop reverting articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.145.228 (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi anonymous user, you're right. I have removed that section because it has any sources. Wiki13 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

RVV
Please do not revert constructive changes without a comment. Thanks 99.120.200.86 (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello anynomous user, links to websites like youtube will soon or later be removed because they add nothing to the article itsself. Wiki13 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominative Determinism
Hey there, as a recent editor of Nominative determinism I'm letting you know if you're not watching the page that an anonymous IP editor is intent on consistently deleting content from it, so if you're up to it, it'd be great if you could monitor any changes on that page to minimize this vandal's impact. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing original research is *not* vandalism. Please refer to WP:NOTVAND. 89.100.150.198 (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As far I see in the article's history there's editwar going on, and i would suggest a protection for this page until there's consensus for removing the content by the IP. Wiki13 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism
Hello there Wiki13, you recently made an 'edit' to War in Afghanistan (2001-present) in which you deleted a section titled the 2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive. I believe this may be a form of vandalism as it is hardly constructive in removing important events that relate to the article. I however, believe this was all done in good faith and you merely made a mistake. Please do not be so careless and respect all articles and their relating histories or I will report you for vandalism against this page.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiki13 actually reverted vandalism, which you subsequently reinstated, thereby removing almost an entire section. Please look again, and an apology to Wiki13 would be nice. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No you are wrong, Wiki13 actually deleted 2006 Dutch/Australian Offensive that is what I am referring to. He did not undo it he deleted it!! If there was anything else that I reinstated then it was not my intention, however, I wanted to reinstate that article after he deleted it. Thankyou.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for a response. Your claim is nonsense, but I hate to repeat myself. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Wiki13, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 17:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
You reverted an edit that saying that it was possible vandalism, but it was not vandalism. Please be more careful. 71.255.88.243 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello anonymous user, please look more carefully, i didn't said it was vandalism. The thing i wrote in the summary was reverting possible vandalism and not reverting vandalism. Regards, Wiki13 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

POV
Christian terrorism article, caught my keyboard by accident but have never seen a revert conducted so fast, by you! However other than the accidental hitting of the enter key, the Norway addition to that article is total crap and just a POV, it should not be there refer to the Norway attacks article and sources. Stating mad mans actions are religious is abhorrent.--88.104.24.43 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's possible you think it's crap, but deleting a whole section without reason can be seen by others as vandalism. Wiki13 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Spare me your retarded sandbox warning.
I provided an explanation. It's mentioned in the bottom. People like you make editors afraid to edit for fear of retarded sandbox warnings. --68.45.60.20 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be better to stay nice to other editors. Just a friendly hint - TBloemink  talk 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to have caused you discomfort. Hopefully next time things work out better. You are welcome to ask for help here anytime. Kind regards, Wiki13 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Isaac Clarke fails Notability, other Wikipedia standards
See this edit that will explain everything (if not, ask the user Rehevkor who was first to redirect this article).

Now revert yourself and apologize to me. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it's a Wikia-style article. Go and take ONE look at it, come on. You seriously owe me "I'm sorry" on my talk page, I'm so fed of people accusing me of "vandalism", this is just idiotic. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Is it REALLY so hard to say "I'm sorry"? --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked ath the page and you were right about it, it misses the lay-out of a normal Wikipedia article. At all, it was (maybe) a bad revert, but i think it is not neccesary to apologize because of 1 mistake. Wiki13 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: i removed the warning of your talkpage. Wiki13 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

blocked users
when a user keeps deleting their block thing, what do you do? it doesn't seem like just reverting it over and over is worthwhile? Glacialfox (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Glacialfox, before you posted this mesaage i requested on WP:AIV to block his talkpage also.  Wiki13 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a observation, the request was directly removed by a bot. An admin who just saw what was going on there changed the block settings and removed the ability to edit his talk page during the block. Wiki13 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: January 2012
What exactly are you talking about? -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Waywardhorizons, can you tell me what's wrong? I don't what you mean. Wiki13 (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After research, i saw you meant your talkpage. I think it's problem began after the revert of 19:25. I accidently reverted your revert, and after that i thougt you're were vandalising. Sorry for the inconvience and sorry for the inrelevant notices on your talkpage. Wiki13 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Hello, please be careful not to revert editors who remove unsourced negative commentary about living people as you did here. The information removed went against WP:BLP and the anonymous editor was correct to remove it. I'm not sure how Igloo works; perhaps it picked up that the anonymous editor had broken the ref tag and that's what you thought you were correcting. I presume it has the option to preview your actual changes before saving? -- Beloved Freak  17:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it was the broken ref tag which triggered Igloo. I am working with Igloo since a few days, but i've seen multiple edits which were not vandalism. Thanks to your message I will keep sharp in monitoting edits. . Wiki13 (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I more or less understand
why you undid an edit at Talk:United States, it did revert to my last edit after all, which I can't complain about, undoing anything on a talk page should (opinion) only be done if leaving it will have serious repercussions. I believe that what you removed was a good faith edit by someone to whom English was not his/her native language. They are trying to make a point, and just not doing a good job. Yet. Removing it seems, to me, to be silencing a voice trying to be heard. Also a voice that I happen to not argee with, so I'm not going to get too bent out of shape. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Carptrash, the edit of the anonymous user wasn't related to article in the first place. Second, sooner or later the edit will be removed from the talkpage, because it isn't related to the article at all. --Wiki13 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the edit was, or seemed to be, part of a discussion as to whether or not "American" is an appropriate term for a citizen of the United States, which is what the article is. Carptrash (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

bahrani people
ashrf1979 puts a name of an author as reference but NO BOOK name at all one "reference" he put is arnold heleer page 441 plus two unreferenced subsections

you should have looked at the pages history befores undoing my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.157.122 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not vandalism
That IP's edit to Cars 2 was not vandalism. You need to realize that character lists are not appropriate on Wikipedia. I reverted your edit. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 18:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Cutecutecuteface2000, I didn't knew that. Thank you for your message. I still don't know everything here, so there's something to learn for me ;-) --Wiki13 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please Review
My edits were made to preserve the neutrality of Wikipedia. Your reversion and subsequent warning of me enables the publishing of opinion material, dead links and defamatory language.

Please reevaluate as I believe you incorrectly targeted me for vandalism while protecting the actual vandal/ policy violator Captchamirror (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A Discussion that may be of interest to you
Hey there, Wiki13, there is a discussion that may interest you at Counter-Vandalism Unit/Re-formatting/Discussion. As one of the hardest working Anti-vandals that I've run into, I'm sure the Project would love to hear your imput. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Felix Leiter
I'm not sure what you're playing at with your reversion, but stop it and don't do it again. And don't ever accuse me of vandalising an article ever again. I look forward to you deleting the message on my talk page straight away. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 16:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, i want to say it's a mistake and that happens anyway. Second, your message here, about my mistake, is a bit aggressive. I will remove the message and I want to say sorry for causing you discomfort. --Wiki13 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much—and apologies for the sharp tone, it's been a bitch of a day. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Serial Vandal
Hi there, I noticed recently you came across a problem with 81.109.92.88. I just thought I would let you know of the previous problems I have had with this user and his previous IP's 82.5.224.162, 81.109.92.81 and 81.109.94.184. This user has had numerous bans of his many carnations and although he dosen't appear to mindfully vandalise pages in order to cause disruption, he does appear to attempt to force his material on to pages which the majority of the time either dumb's down the article, or he will change words, or add incorrect infomation. All attempts to communicate with this user of the past couple of years have failed, and he simply just delete's messages from his talk page. There was a case against him to see if we could get an indefinate block, and there was a case as well against him using sock puppets, Anyhow I just though I would bring this to your attention. Regards Footballgy (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything okay...?
I'm taking a few reversions from you at the moment - can we talk about this? Fayedizard (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Fayedizard, I already reverted myself as you can see. The revert was a mistake. I also saw that an another user made the same one. Hopefully I caused you not any discomfort by making a stupid revert. Regards Wiki13 (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem - just was starting to worry that my name had been put on some sort of list :) It's good to see you guys watching out for us though :) Fayedizard (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bethlehem Steel
I think if you look at the article and link carefully you will find that link and my edit constructive. The 359 has a personal vendetta against anything I do. The link is to a scholarly photo essay by a prestigious publication — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.193.133.208 (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Kony
Hellow! I just wanted to know why did you reverted my edition of Joseph Kony logo, in order to capture him. Thanks ! --Dabit100 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Dabit100, in my opinion you were advertising. Advertising should not be done on Wikipedia. Altough I could see it wrong that you were advertising. Regards, Wiki13 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI
See this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I admit that my reverts were bad as far i now see and maybe an abuse of the rollback tool. I agree with you that Jmsager should be unblocked. Also i want to apologize to Jmsager which was blocked by my fault. Regards, Wiki13 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Jmsager block
Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Torry
I just want to point out to you that one of your Huggle reverts actually contributed to bringing back a lot of vandalism on the Torry page. User 87.113.25.126 removed much of it; your revert brought back the vandalism which I was alerted to by STiki. I've since fixed the page and one additional line which had been slipped in. Here is the instance. I know you fight vandals as much as I do; just wanting to alert you of this instance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 16:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Saleem Dabbour
Hi. Is there a reason you made this revert? ~dee ( talk? ) 16:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Deed, I thought it was an article so I removed the links because they seemed to be spam. Now, I see, that revert was wrong. --Wiki13 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. ~dee  ( talk? ) 18:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Wiki13 and thanks for fighting vandalism; I have blocked for a week the IP editor you reported, also disabling his ability to edit his talk page, and suppressed those edits of his that contained non-public bits of info about a living person. Next time something like this happens, however, please just revert the edits, without replying, report the vandal to WP:AIV no matter if he hasn't received four warnings yet  and then shoot an email to the oversight team. Thanks and cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Salvio giuliano. I will do that next time. Thanks for letting me know! --Wiki13 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hector Pieterson Article
Admittedly, the link was a bit stupid, but it is rather difficult for anyone to believe that 5000 people died in the Soweto uprising. In fact, it is completely historically inaccurate. A bad link is a bit stupid, but fabricating the deaths of 4500 people is outrageously immoral of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.128.72 (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. TheArguer SAY HI! 07:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

One second thoughts
You have defeated me, good sir, and changed my outlook forever. I take off my hat in a salute, and put an end to my follies. From now on I swear to be just like you, and will be known as WISHNACK, GOD OF REVERTING. Thank you for showing me the path to the light.

May all your harvest be bountiful.--121.218.14.184 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?!
I am displeased with this - urn- unbehavioural problematics. disease and attist is need b. no more

urs sinseerly, sincere.

tanko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.14.184 (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

How do I write a post to you? I deleted sections which were based on John Cornwell because he has been disproved and recanted much of what he wrote. See footnotes on the page of Nazi and Catholicism, footnotes 92-96. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.61.127 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Acehnese Wikipedia
Hi! Please see ace:Marit Ureuëng Nguy:Wiki13 WhisperToMe (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm Edit
The picture clearly belongs on the Sarcasm page because it is an excellent example of someone making a sarcastic facial expression. Please stop ignoring me and respond with your reason for removing the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevLynch2012 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mistake??
Hello Wiki13:

My messages claim that I have made edits to the pages "Lowland" and "Tommy". However, I have made no edits to Wikipedia, actually, at all. Why am I receiving mistaken messages (I am wondering this, especially, because I have had this problem before)? Could it be that my IP address has changed to that of the vandal? 108.43.133.201 (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think indeed that you got an IP-adress from your ISP which has been used before for vandalism. This website seems to confirm that this IP is dynamic and will be reallocated after some time to an other customer. If you don't want to see this messages you could create an account, to prevent getting messages that aren't meant for you. Regards, --Wiki13 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
I just rolledbacked you by mistake. Now you've got two little notices :-). Jamesx12345 18:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I don't really mind to be honest. I still rollback people when it's not my intention to that ;-). --Wiki13 (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

31.51.83.90 edits to 2013 in British music charts
I reverted this user too, and they left me a note informing me that the content they removed was duplicated. I checked and this is accurate; someone else duplicated the latter part of the article and this IP was trying to clean it up. I advised them to use edit summaries in the future, but also wanted to let you know that I removed our warnings on their talk page as they were not valid. --Chris (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, thanks for the note you left me here. I was purely focusing on that big chunck of information that got removed before. I don't have any problems that you removed teh warnings at their talkpage. --Wiki13 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes to wrong mechanical operations section to the AR-15 article
--184.59.118.198 (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)I am sure that you are just doing your job but there need to be some changes made to the AR-15 article page. The following is what I suggest and if you have any questions you may want to check the Stags Arms company website at: http://info.stagarms.com/blog/bid/297530/The-difference-between-Gas-Piston-and-Direct-Impingement-technology-for-an-AR-15 And I do thank you for your consideration, Merry Christmas.

The difference between Gas Piston and Direct Impingement technology for an AR-15

Posted by Stag Arms on Fri, Sep 06, 2013

The AR-15 Rifle, while eminently customizable, carries with it a few conundrums. One is the choice of operating system; do you get a model which uses gas piston technology, or the more traditional direct impingement?

Fans of the gas piston will state that impingement models are prone to jamming and often foul easily. Fans of the impingement model will call gas piston tech mechanically unsound. Who is correct, and what is the real difference between the model types here?

Basic AR Functionality – What makes an AR-15 an AR-15?

To qualify as an AR-15, a rifle must be self-loading, and be able to perform a specific set of basic functions mechanically, without user assistance. To be more specific when depressing the trigger, the rifle needs to fire a single cartridge, and then extract that spent case from the chamber and eject it in some manner. Next, it must then load an unspent cartridge into the chamber. The round is plucked from the magazine, the breech is then locked, and the hammer cocked. The rifle will then have a fresh round loaded, and again be ready to fire. Direct Impingement – How do the original AR-15 models work?

Direct Impingement is the original technology, devised by Eugene Stoner. Propellant gas is bled through a small hole located in the barrel, which is then channeled through a very small tube where it can proceed to directly contact (or impinge) the bolt carrier mechanism. At this point the gas is pushed to the rear of the rifle, and the spent case is extracted and ejected. It is then pushed forward by spring-loaded action, and strips an unspent round from the cartridge, loading it directly into the chamber of the barrel. Contrary to the statements of Gas Piston proponents we have put over 2000 rounds through rifles without cleaning and without malfunction.

Gas Piston Technology – How do the new piston technologies work?

Gas piston technology was first used in modern firearms by Mikhail Kalashnikov on the AK-47. While similar at first blush to direct impingement systems, there are a few key differences in operation. The firing process again begins with propellant gases being bled into the barrel. However, instead of being forced into a tube as it is in a direct impingement system, it is contained in a separate cylinder.

This cylinder contains a piston(similar in operation to what you may find in an AK-47). The gas moves the piston, is in turn pushes the bolt carrier rearward to handle the extraction and ejection process, and then is moved pushed forward to the closed position by a spring just as with direct impingement.

Which system is better?

The direct impingement has proven itself through the years on the AR-15 platform and replacement parts are inexpensive, easy to obtain, and generally made to a set “mil-spec” standard. Due to the hot gas from the fired cartridge being redirected into the action it will quickly heat up and become dirty requiring a cool down period before the bolt carrier can be removed from the rifle.

The action of a piston rifle remains cool and clean, even after shooting 100 rounds in rapid succession. The bolt carrier can be removed immediately and held in your hand without burning yourself. The trade off for the action staying cool and clean is that you will experience snappier recoil when shooting which makes the piston rifle a little less accurate, especially for follow up shots. Finally, piston system parts are not interchangeable between manufacturers due to there being no set standard and the use of proprietary pistons and bolt carriers 184.59.118.198 (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, the main problem of edits is that they remove a lot of wiki markup. Also you give attribution of your edits in the article itself, which is, to say it nice, not done. Wikipedia articles also don't really have questions. Concluding, there are some problems with your edits, which you can probably fix very easily by looking how other articles are written. --Wiki13 (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed the edits and reverts and would like to point out that in addition to being thoroughly unencyclopaedic in both style and content the material added also seems to be a copyright violation (copied from Stag Arms), so there are multiple reasons for removing it. Thomas.W talk 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the feed back. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.118.198 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert
Why are u reverting my explained edit without even stating a reason?? 2001:BB6:A09:C58:40B5:191C:8A0:B8CB (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello anonymous user, I clearly missed the comment you made in the edit summary. If I had seen it better I would have not reverted you. I apologize for the mistake. Kind regards, Wiki13 (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Cyberbot I
Would you mind unblocking the bot on meta and Wikidata? I believe the problem is fixed, and I would like to observe.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Wiki13 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)