Wikipedia:VP2/Abuse

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

User:Sagaciousuk
I'd like to comment on Sagaciousuk's use of VP2, the comment relates to what is in my eyes, minor abuse of the tool. While house sitting for my sister while she was out of town, I looked up the article Desi Arnaz, while reading the article I spotted a nonsense line in the text that had nothing to do with the article. I reverted it citing it as nonsense. Low and behold I refresh the page and there is the text re-inserted, reverted by Sagaciousuk. When I pointed out that he erroneously reverted my edit, I was told it as an accident that he could not have prevented. I checked a few of his latest reverts and discovered he was reverting things that were not vandalism, nor was it a random edit or out-of-place edit, as he seemed to claim. He showed an almost defiant attitude towards the point I raised about his reverting things that clearly were not vandalism. I kindly asked that he just pay more attention to what he is reverting, his response seemed to indicate that an edit summary was needed to make an edit to articles, that the change has to be justified in an edit summary or else he would be inclined to revert it. That is wrong on many levels. Firstly, the anon he reverted probably had no clue what an edit summary on Wikipedia is, so instead of reverting he should have explained what an edit summary is to the anon, not just revert him without an explanation. Secondly the edit was not vandalism, nor nonsense, or an un-needed edit. The revert was here at the Zbigniew Brzezinski article. In my opinion more people will know what dominance means, over preponderance, and so that was a more than acceptable change, edit summary or not. I find his attitude towards anon editors to be a serious violation of WP:BITE. I'd also like to note this thread at Sagaciousuk's talk page User_talk:Sagaciousuk, and this thread at the ip talk page I was on at the time User talk:68.248.131.61.
 * Also to clarify why I was not logged in at the time this happened: I was not at home, as mentioned above, but at my sister's house, I was not logging on Wikipedia to revert vandals or perform any admin related tasks. I was just going to read the Desi Arnaz article, which does not require logging in, to read or edit articles on Wikipedia. K O  S |  talk  06:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Jim Douglas unfairly censored my article about Bob Edgar's service in Congress, which I, as a former committeeman and political science major, wrote, based on my newspaper clipping collection as well as research in newspaper libraries and in the Free Library of Philadelphia. By the way, I received an "A" on my college thesis on "Ticket Splitting in the City of Philadelphia".

Abuse on my read article
Hi all,

please note this abuse on my talk page "Do not pull this shit again, it is already mentioned in the lede, do not try and equate the atrocity's of the Pakistani army to the rebel's again, 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)" - This was done by darknessshines. He didn't leave a tilde signature, I believe trying to cover up. However please check the talkpage edit history for evidence.

I'd rather he discuss problems productively than to use such words.

Thanks again ( Wiki id2  (talk)  18:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scam_title
The person who wrote this article is misleading the public falsely to promote the sale of Scottish Titles through false statements in the article here is a link to the government website where the U.K Government clearly accepts Manorial Titles as Genuine Titles: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/agencies-public-bodies/ips/passports-policy-publications/titles-included-in-passports?view=Binary

Surely Wikipedia would not publish an article that makes false statements;

Graham Smith Lord of the Manor of Holme