User talk:Aaqib/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Blanking your talk page

Hey there! I notice that you've been removing messages of constructive criticism from your talk page. While this is not against any kind of policy or guideline, it is considered bad form by many, myself included. This is not any kind of warning, and I know you mean to act in good faith, but it would be much more convenient for other users if you would take the time to archive your talk page. Instructions on doing so are here. Thanks for considering this. TCN7JM 20:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry --Aaqib Hola! 20:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Aaqib. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntof6 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are removing things that are not vandalism

Please think more about changes before reverting them as vandalism. You have reverted vandalism, but you have also reverted changes that were not vandalism. Some examples of this are:

• http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Durning&diff=4461577&oldid=4461544
• http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jew&diff=prev&oldid=4459968
• http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheese&diff=4458483&oldid=4458390

I have cautioned you about this before. Was there something that made you think these changes were vandalism? Please remember that you cannot assume that changes by IP users are vandalism. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reasons, for the first one. I did not think it is needed. When I was a new user, GoblinBot4 reverted my edits to Dexter's Laboratory which was obviously not vandalism. Because I do not want to get into an edit war, I decided to leave it there. For a perfect explanation (if you did not see enough of an excuse), I reverted the IP Address's edits just to make sure she does not go bonkers and destroy different pages. Just giving the IP Address to not do the past contributions in the future. Okay! On to my second one, Not needed, the contributions made by that person was not needed in my looks. And --- everybody has different opinions. That contributor should have just ignored the page because the contributor before him/her was perfect. "One is" is perfect! And the cheese, you got to be kidding me. I pet some random person can revert the edits by that IP Address because of "soilid". I mean! What the heck is that! I bet that IP Address seriously spelled "soilid". And just fixing it is bitter time. Anyway, that contributor should have not contributed to the page. It was perfect before. And?? How do you know all my contributions. Why are you tagging along with me? --Aaqib Hola! 00:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I do not assume IP Address's contributions are vandalism anymore! --Aaqib Hola! 00:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like equally to what to what I reverted to one or two of the above links. --Aaqib Hola! 00:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
First, if you revert a change just because you think it isn't needed, you shouldn't tag it as vandalism and give the editor a warning. In cases like that, you can use an edit summary like "reverted good faith edits". Those three edits you reverted were perfectly acceptable the way they were. On the Charles Durning article, what is wrong with saying that he was a dance instructor? On the Cheese article, yes there was a misspelled word, but you can fix that without reverting the entire change and the previous wording was better (cheese is not "a type of milk", and "eat" is better than "chew").

I found some of these changes of yours because I look at Special:RecentChanges. Many editors watch that page for various reasons. When I saw that you were tagging edits as vandalism when they weren't vandalism, then I looked at all your contributions. I would bet I'm not the only editor doing that. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism consists of edits which are meant to disrupt the wiki. That means the edits are causing harm to the article. Did the edits cause harm to the article(s)? And who are you to determine whether a contributor/particular edit is "perfect"? Chenzw  Talk  04:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Aaqib, we are following your contributions because we are trying to prevent anything wrong from happening. Your many reverts of things that were obviously good faith edits have made editors like us need to do this so that you don't accidentally drive contributors away from the wiki by warning them for vandalism when they were acting in good faith. I would be happy to teach you what is and isn't vandalism, and I'm sure a couple other editors would too, but your attitude in the above post that the contributor to Cheese was wrong in every way is condescending and must stop. TCN7JM 09:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

As an addition, we all know that vandalism is something bad and we all don't want vandals to ruin the wiki, but your warning here was bordering on inappropriate. Please do not insult the vandals. (also relevant) Chenzw  Talk  09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of {{under construction}}

Please note this template is used only to prevent edit conflicts. If you leave that template on an article, we are expecting that you will be making many changes to the article over a short period of time. Please do not use this template to "tag" "incomplete" articles. Also be aware that usage of this template does not override the deletion policy. If an article has been "tagged" with that article but not edited for a long enough time, and meets our quick deletion criteria, it will still be deleted by an administrator (eg. Governor of Virginia). Chenzw  Talk  04:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate message

I don't think your message on your talk page if too appropriate.I am talking about this : "...if anything or someone's contributions are wrong. Please report them to me. I will handle the user..."."...Please report them to me...", that sounds like you are an administrator.Why would someone report to you and not to an administrator?Reception123 / Receptie123 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.