User talk:TwizteDope
Hello, TwizteDope, and thanks for informing me of your change. I see you are new to Wikipedia. Please be very careful not to rv someone's edits as vandalism without checking it out first. In this case, a valid (disambiguation) page was overwritten by an invalid (unreferenced) article. I restored it to how it was. If it had been a referenced article, I would have recreated it at a more appropriate title, but as we are not allowed to create unreferenced articles, I didn't do so. It's always worth having a look at someone's user page, and user contributions to see if they are likely to be a vandal, and to look carefully at their edit summary. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
PLEASE stop this. I have given a very clear edit summary, and left message on your Talk page. If you have issues, discuss them on Talk:Carl Björkman, don't revert someone's edit claiming they are a vandal. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
STiki
[edit]Hi! Thank you for your vandalism reversions with STiki. Please be aware that STiki is a computer program and can't think for itself. This means that you are responsible for checking the edits before you hit the "Vandalism" button. It seems that in quite a number of cases you didn't look closely enough; for example, this undid an edit that added wrong information, but was clearly not vandalism. Here you removed a rant that was really pointless, but wasn't vandalism either. This really was vandalism, but you reverted to an earlier version that was another vandal's work. And what was wrong with this edit?
Don't get me wrong, vandalism fighting is really important, but please don't make unfounded accusations, and always think twice before believing STiki (or indeed any computer program). Not all bad edits, not even all intentionally bad edits, constitute vandalism:
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.
If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, you can just ask on this page, as I'm watching it. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
td: I apologise for the wrong reverts, I will make sure it will never happen again in future. I was a little bit confused with the bot, as it was my first use. Thank you for notifying me.
- No problem, and thanks again for your work! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
STiki: A new version and a thank you!
[edit]Greetings TwizteDope. As the developer of the STiki anti-vandal tool, I would like to thank you for recent and non-trivial use of my software. Whether you just tried out the tool briefly or have been a long-term participant, I appreciate your efforts (as I am sure does the entire Wikipedia community)!
I write to inform you of a new version of the software (link goes to list of new features). This version addresses multiple long-term issues that I am happy to put behind us. Try it out! Provide some feedback!
The STiki project is also always seeking collaborators. In particular, we are seeking non-technical colleagues. Tasks like publicity, talk-page maintenance, advertisement, and barn-star distribution are a burden to technical development. If you are interested, write me at my talk page or STiki's talk page.
As STiki approaches two significant thresholds: (1) 100,000 revert actions and (2) 400 unique users -- I hope to have your support in continuing the efficient fight against unconstructive editing. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)