This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For reverting the vandalism on my userpage. (C/SGT)G2sai(talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! Atif.t2 (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the most keen on Wikipedia policies but I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to just undo suggestions I make on the talk page just cause you aren't happy with the suggestion (or whyever you decided to undo my suggestion).

So, please don't, I don't want this to be a revert war, it was very rude. Avalik (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avalik, I was reverting the vandalized page but you seem to have reverted it just a second sooner. Due to this it was roll backed to vandalized stage. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thanks for the notice. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, alrighty then. I'm unsure what that means really hehe, but sorry for the accusation in that case. :) Avalik (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. ^(C/SSG)G2sai_(talk) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why my informative edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztek is reverted as unconstructive.

BR. Henrik

Hi Henrik, It is already mentioned in the article regarding the Car. There is no need to add it in the disambiguation page. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks my good friend 62.6.149.17 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are faster than a bot - well done. Nasnema (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You reverted my deletion of content from Oliver Lewis. You were wrong. Oliver Lewis was an African-American jockey. The material I removed was related to the hoax discography of a nonexistent British singer. I have now reverted your reversion of my anti-hoax edit. I am aware that many IP are vandals, but you need to be more careful with your edits. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It would had been better if you would have mentioned it being hoax in edit summary again after removing the content. Anyway thanks for bringing it to my notice. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		...deserve this. Until It Sleeps T • C 23:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! Atif.t2 (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the list of episodes in the top-right corner because: 1) it is already contained in the "list of Law & Order episodes (season 1) page, and; 2) I have not seen such a list in the top-right corner of any other episode page.

I am certainly open to feedback. Thank you.

Hi Jdlankin, please mention the Article name or the link. Also please sign your talk by typing four tildes. Atif.t2 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was changing a very important sentence with a complete other meaning

criteria are very scientifical must be criteria are NOT very scientifical —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Response has been provided at your talk page. Atif.t2 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert my correct edits. Dice is the plural form of the word die. (80.57.192.180 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)).

Thanks for mentioning it in the edit summary. Your edit has been restored. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I do not have a log in it should not bee seen by yourself as reason for you to 'shout' vandamilsm. To state und=constrcutive when clearly I have stated an update i.e. the latest WHO standing on formaldehyde's carcinogen stance and also added additional value to the IKEA text who by the way use more MDF than particleboard and finally my edit mentioning the standards to which modern resins are produced is by iteslf totally constructive and the whole point of Wikipedia - I will not edit the text again as i consider your acts as vandalism and ask that for the sake of wikipedia that you edit back my text into the page.

good day mr vandal consider your self excused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree but it would have gone a long way to help if what you are writing now, you would have put it into the edit summary while editing. Edits without a summary or refrences make up the bulk of vandalism. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you now feel the points are now relevent and your reason for deletion was that they weren't - I think and only my opinon, that you should be reading more carefully and be less trigger happy with that delete button. Also funny, well relatively speaking, is how quick you are to delete i.e. seconds after i had altered the text - just maybe i forgot to add a comment and did not expect a jimmy cricket like you to be so damn quick at deleting!!!!

I accept you apology and feel you will have learnt your lesson - for your information this page on particle board is very basic shows little background to the product, growth, forecast growth, producer detail, resin technology, machine technolgy - all of which i have the capacity to develop but will leave it for you to do since you love this page so much and with the growth of particleboard in india at 20% per annum with 1Mn m3 per annum you can start to look at this mr Atif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for reverting of your edits was that they were without an edit summary and without citation or refrence. They looked like a random vandal work. Please continue editing but with an edit summary and information backed by refrence. Thanks Atif.t2 (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Atif, please take note - your work has good intentions but you really must realise that YOUR actions are verging on vandalism and you should take a step back and look at how you go about your work. 1)The speed at which you deleted was unacceptable - i explained that you need to give time for people to finish editig and add citations and edit summarys - For your infoimration i would give 6 hours. However, 2) Simply seeing an article lacks edit notes or citations is not a reason by itself to delete. For you to decide requires from you to read the new article and make an informed decision AND YOU must then give relevent edit history; which by the way is what you demand for new entries yet double standards seem to be in place for yourself as you offered no edit history when deleting my changes. Without the edit history added to your deletes it would be easy for your actions to be seen as VANDALISM. I undertsnad that you are acting in good intentions and this may be an oversight. I hope you now understand you errors - don't delete so quickly, give people a chance to edit, Don't just delete without adding a edit summary yourself as this is vandalism - Remember these two rules ATIF and you will be a better Wikipedian. If you feel you need claification or if you wish to thank me or say sorry please feel free to contact me.

Big Luv ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to understand that while editing in an existing article an edit summary is provided so that others can understand what has been changed. As you know the changes are instant many others readers of wikipedia can get wrong information if the artcile has been vandalised. For this edits which look like vandalism has to be reverted instantly. FYI I have reverted your edits not deleted them.

1. Edit summary are provided there and then when the page is saved. They cannot be added later.
2. Agreed citations can be added later, but it is better if you add them there and then as you have demonstrated good knowledge of the article above.
3. My actions were solely to protect the integrity of the article from vandalism. How can they verge on Vandalism. For more confirmation you can see my contributions.
4. To be a better wikipedian start following the above basic rules and remember to sign your comments.
5. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you need help.

PS while reverting your changes edit summary was provided. Also a message was posted on your talk page if you check. Atif.t2 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Atif - you clearly don't link the speed of your response with action verging on vandalism - i feel for you and hope one day you will have the compassion to look at this from a newbie's point of view. i.e. i am new to wikipedia, i don't understand signing, i don't quite know how to make hyperlinks, citations, and to be honest i only recntly found the edit history box, does this mean i am a vandal - well of course not as this is all down to what i post - and what i posted was relevent aqnd accurate. To be accused as a vandal is not nice. Yes, I accuse you of vandalsim but this is open to opinion and therefore i have to daste stated you are verging on vandalsim. Your decision to revert does in essence delete my work so i simply stated it was deletion and as mentioned the speed at which you act does not allow newbies like myself to have the time and opportunity to finish their work and as mentioned previously i no longer have the desire to put this below par article into shape - all becasue of your action! you sir verge on vandalism. putting the little people down, making the newbies feel inferior - you are a bully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier edits which may harm an article are reverted when noticed there and then. There is no timeframe for them as the changes are instantaneous and are read by the world. You must understand the harm it may cause if the article is false. I am not accusing of Vandalism nor do i say that i know all. Simply put i saw your edit, thought the additions did not belong to the page nor was there an edit summary to inform me what your intention was in changing the article so I reverted it. I would have been more than happy to help you if you would have asked. Remember I have erased the Vandal notice from your talk page. But you again and again in the above posts call me a vandal and make personal attacks against me. I am going to let it go. If as a newbie you want more information I am providing the links below. Happy Reading.

1. For any help go here
2. For editing, formatting help go here

Atif.t2 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Atif, i dont accept that articles must be changed ASAP and have highlighted the problems this causes. I tahnk you for you links. I understand that you have erased the vandal notice but do see you as the vandle in this instance. This is open to interpretation and will not follow on this further. No need to follow up - Lets both agree we can both improve. Happy Reading —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.187.77 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no reverts done if an article is edited in compliance with Wikipedia policy so no problems are caused. Speedy reversion of vandalism is what keeps the artciles consistent. You may not agree, everyone has the right not to. I agree, lets put it to rest. Hope you may have learned valuably from this talk. Atif.t2 (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Locutus0fLegi0n, whom you warned a few minutes ago, is a vandalism-only account and, if I'm not mistaken, a sockpuppet of multiply-banned User:Hdayejr. Check out the slurs on his discussion page. That alone should qualify for an immediate block. Thanks.174.96.47.231 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am not on admin. Just a normal editor. Please report it here [[1]] Atif.t2 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Get lost. The fact about McAteer and Blacking was indeed a wicked rumour. John has spoken to me about it. You don't know him so please don't accuse me of vandalism. It is no wonder why you are single you loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.104.122 (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Really. You may face blocking for using obscenities in your edits. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait sorry you weren't the one who warned me about Blacking and McAteer. Oh crisis I am actually really sorry. You were very polite in your warning to me. It was the other user who was rude to me. I am so sorry for any offence or upset caused. No, Chloe McShane is a very famous baker in Slough and Noel Edmonds is a regular at McShane's Bakery. The Jesus part was loyalty to my Catholic faith. McShane is a very strong Catholic. She is well known for her church going ways. Again, I apologise for my mistaken rudeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.104.122 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad everything worked out. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for saving my page again, keep up the good work. Good fortune to you always, ^(C/SSG)G2sai_(talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My Pleasure, Thanks for your kind words. Atif.t2 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Almost every time when I am about to revert vandalism from some article, you have already reverted it. You are really fast against vandals, and you really deserve this barnstar! Ilyushka88 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate, referenced changes. Please undo YOUR vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.120.41 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Though you were refrencing an article your tone in the hyperlink "Nationwide is awesome" is far from neutral tone of an encyclopedia. Please adopt a neutral tone while voicing a fact otherwise the article may look like an advertisement. Atif.t2 (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just have asked me to change it instead of getting rid of the whole thing?? I've now changed what you didn't like, hope that is more of a neutral tone for an encylopedia for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.120.41 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You could have reverted my edit with just a undo button. Anyway thanks for keeping up with wikipedia views. These rules were created with consensus, not by me. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User Talk:Jasepl is accusing me of being a Sockpuppet of some banned user. What should i do. I can't let some user accuse me of something which is false. (Marcosino Pedros Sancheza (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Please contact an admin here or you can contact the arbitration commitee for dispute resolution. Atif.t2 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Thank you very much for the barnstar. (My first one) Ilyushka88 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Um. Was there a point to the revert-revert you just did? If you'd like to come help establish some consensus, that'd be most welcome. –ConkblockCity (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well when the changes were done to the article by Commandr Cody, i thought it was vandalism so I reverted the page but on second thought I undid my revert to the revision done by Commandr Cody. I did this so as this can be discussed by Commandr Cody on the talk page about the thoughts he gave in edit summary. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

why are you doing this to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.100.143 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but Vandalism in an article like "penis juice" has to be removed. Atif.t2 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is NPOV and very messy with unsourced claims, my revision helped address that issue so I reverted your revision of my edits. I gave the explanation for my revision and there is no way they can be seen as non-constructive; please clarify. 86.131.245.64 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the notice from your talk page. The edit was done without an edit summary involving a major blanking of the article, that's why it was reverted. Thanks for reverting me. Please continue developing the article. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How much did the contractor pay you for messing up with Wärtsiläs Wikipedia entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.218.121 (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually none. You seem to have a stream of notices warning you to stop. Atif.t2 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, my apologies for leaving a blank edit summary, I intended to write one but forgot. As for Wärtsiläs, well I'll leave that for you two to sort out. 86.131.245.64 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad you understand. Well Wärtsiläs was an actual case of vandalism. It has been sorted out already. Thanks Atif.t2 (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)