It was no mistake. This person is a troll. This is the same person who came onto the mailing list as an anon, expressing amazement that his edits to the September 11 attacks page were reverted. His wide-eyed innocent act doesn't fool me. He's already filed an RfC on me even though I explained to him on his Talk page why I had acted in the manner I did on the edits he's questioning. I have no desire to continue discussion with him.
RickK
"KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote: Some admins watch recent changes, and have vandalism in progress on their watchlists. Other don't. Rick is one of the former. In fact, he deals with vandalism a lot! His user page regularly gets vandalised, and his talk page regularly gets messages from vandals that he has blocked (Who are trying to troll him, or merely expressing an opinion about his sexuality, or his mothers sexuality etc ;-). He probably mistook you for one.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: R E Broadley [mailto:20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 26 November 2004 11:37 Cc: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A user seems to have spent the day revertingarticles which appeared to be legitamite edits
And the fact that he deleted the contents of his talk page as soon as I'd started this discussion with him also seemed suspicious to me. Why would he delete our discussion unless he had something to hide?
R E Broadley wrote:
Tim,
One of us is interpreting the diff displays backwards. I thought it was RickK doing the deleting, (including the deletion of the
asterisk).
I shall double-check.
Apologies in advance if it was me reading it wrong, although from one of the comments RickK said to me, he did actually confirm that he was removing stuff, which reinforced my belief that I was interpreting the
diff logs correctly.
Regards, Edmund
Tim Starling wrote:
R E Broadley wrote:
When I went back to the users talk page, I noticed that they had deleted their talk page, along with the recent discussion on the reverts,
but
thanks to Wikipedia history, I managed to capture the URL of a
version
where the discussion was still there. It is here below:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=7859165 #Articles_reverted_but_no_reason_given
The reverts in question look fine to me. The edits were:
- Unexplained removal of text saying that the gospels were "compiled
from a much larger literature in 327AD under the orders of Constantine the Great", rolled back
- Sneaky removal of an asterisk, breaking a bulleted list, rolled
back
- Unexplained deletion of a paragraph, rolled back
This isn't a violation of policy. I think it's odd that Rebroad characterised these edits as follows:
"I appreciate there were spelling mistakes that were obvious to you, but I'm guessing they weren't obvious to the person who put some effort into adding the additional information. And if you felt it was
biased, couldn't you have let them know this also?"
RickK was not correcting spelling or removing biased information, he was reverting deletion. I think he was well within his rights to remove this complaint from his talk page. I wouldn't mind if the complainant was removed from this mailing list either.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!