User talk:C.Syde65

Reverting edit to sandbox
Why, exactly, did you revert my edits to the Sandbox? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 02:37, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand it's the sandbox, but you know how rollback works. Why then are you still doing pointless rollbacks like this one? --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:38, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * It was a long line of edits, and I just wanted to do a rollback test. If you think it's unnecessary, I won't do it again. But it was the sandbox and it does say "not changing any serious content". If that doesn't mean that I should do rollback tests then that's alright. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 02:43, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of a "rollback test" when 1. You know how rollback works, 2. You know someone's currently using the sandbox so you probably don't want to deliberately get into an edit conflict with them, and 3. You've already done multiple rollback tests in the sandbox!


 * Rollback is a tool. Don't misuse tools. Don't use them recklessly, even in a "sandbox". If you want to play with rollback, you're welcome to do it on your own test wiki where nobody else would care. But not while other people are using it, and especially not to randomly revert people's edits without explanation, and then undo your rollback with "it had to be done". What had to be done? Wasted server space? Or hurt feelings? Even in a sandbox I'd call this inappropriate use of rollback. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:47, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Rollback rights are given to users who will use them responsibly. What you did does not demonstrate responsible usage. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 03:09, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * That's okay. I have to admit I was being reckless, especially with the risk of "edit conflict". Note to self: only perform rollback on your own edits, or rather, only use rollback on test wikis. :) --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 03:46, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this sums it up pretty well:


 * Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. Rollback may be used:


 * To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
 * To revert edits in your own user space
 * To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
 * To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
 * To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page[1]


 * Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.
 * Please familiarize yourself with these rules. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 04:02, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * If there's one thing that slipped out of my mind, or never entered my mind, it must have been that. Well at least I've familiarized myself with those rules, especially given the risk of "edit conflicts" which I totally underestimated the seriousness that other take when edit conflicts happen. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 04:06, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

Please do not archive messages so early. Other people may have things to say. Wait at least a few days (maybe a week) before archiving messages. Archiving messages within hours of them being made may make a bad impression on people that you want to remove their messages from sight as quickly as possible, not "archiving to prevent the talk page from getting too long".

I wouldn't say you've familiarized yourself with the rules of rollback just yet, because of what you just did. But we've been here before about inappropriate rollback, and that was almost a month ago. Maybe it's time for you to stop and re-read the rules carefully, taking notes if you have to. Simply skimming over text is not "familiarizing".

Also, it's always important to recognize the importance of trying to avoid edit conflicts when possible. Edit conflicts do and can happen and sometimes they're unavoidable - how are you supposed to know that someone else was editing the same talk page/article as you were? But if you see someone making fresh edits in the sandbox, unless they stop editing for hours on end, assume they're still using it. If you need to use the sandbox, either use your own personal sandbox in your userspace or use a different section of the sandbox that won't trigger an edit conflict. If you see someone editing the sandbox and you rush in to edit their work and deliberately get them into an edit conflict, it won't leave a good impression on you. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  11:02, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright. Sorry I archived it so early. It's just that the second archive hasn't been what I like to call quite finished. Also I wasn't sure that this thread was still active which is why I closed it so early.


 * As for familiarizing, I guess I should do more than just skim over text. But now that I've understood the seriousness of edit conflicts etc. I can change that particular pattern. Skimming over text has worked for me sometimes, but maybe not this time. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 20:18, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright. Sorry I archived it so early. It's just that the second archive hasn't been what I like to call quite finished.


 * Huh? I don't think it matters at all whether an archive is "finished" or not. Archives are built up slowly over time, not in one day. At least that's how I see it. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  22:54, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I know an archive isn't built up in one day. I'll be waiting until I receive some more messages before I add them to the second archive. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 23:21, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look at my Wikipedia talk page, I set the archive bot to only archive discussions after 10 days. However the length of when discussions can be archived depends on how busy the discussion page is. On Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page, sections are archived after being unanswered for just 36 hours, but only because the page is extremely busy. But even 36 hours is longer than the 2 hours here. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  23:33, October 4, 2014 (UTC)


 * I've familiarized myself with the majority of the rules of the rollback tool. That was obviously the, or part of the minority of the rules that I hadn't familiarized myself with. I'd familiarized myself with this part "Not perform rollback on good faith edits", but not this part "Not perform rollback on good faith edits even in the sandbox". I've added that rope to my user blog. One can't always count on a user blog to help jog their memory, but I feel that I'd be remiss if I didn't. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:38, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Reverted message
Please read the text on Talkheader before adding new messages to talk pages. Your message was removed because it doesn't belong on that page. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 21:57, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * Making an observation is not the same as starting a discussion on improving the article. Talk pages are for improvements to the article only. You've made almost 10,000 edits to the wiki; I shouldn't have to be telling you this. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:04, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
 * "The truth is that lots of other people have done it in the past." That doesn't excuse it in the least. You've been on the wiki for several months, you've had thousands of edits, you're a rollbacker and have applied for adminship... this is a basic rule and something you should already know. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:36, October 8, 2014 (UTC)

King Raymundo Rodiekhkare
The edit made to King Raymundo Rodiekhkare here was an attempt by a new user to add an interwiki link to one of our language wikis. They were initially confused and didn't succeed at first. They then tried to revert their own edit but accidentally removed the existing interwiki link as well. Now while you didn't use rollback, you still reverted without explanation, which has the same destructive effects as using rollback on a good faith edit. I have fixed the interwiki link here. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  10:55, October 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to show that I was reverting to the revision by Tiezel, but I guess I should have mentioned that I was doing so because Tiezel's revision was the most up to date . Rollback does the first part too. Saying "rv to last version by User A" when you're reverting all consecutive edits made by one user is the same as clicking rollback, which will read "Reverted edits by User B (talk | block) to last version by User A". Also, the second part... what? "Most up to date"? That makes zero sense - the IP was trying to add an interwiki link. In short, the page was in fact outdated and they were trying to update it. Instead of reverting you should've just corrected the simple error. When in doubt, reverting may not be the best option. And yes, we are both aware that the IP had accidentally removed the interwiki link, but they were originally trying to add a new one. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  20:34, October 9, 2014 (UTC)


 * Interwiki links connect our wiki with our other language wikis. See Help:Interwiki links for what they're all about. Interwiki links appear at the bottom of the article and point to other language wikis. This is useful for readers that speak a different language.


 * I apologize if I appear to write in an irritated tone, but the truth is I am getting quite annoyed what with your unexplained reverts, rollbacks, super-early archiving, an irrelevant talk page discussion as mentioned in the discussion above, and silently removing a notice from your talk page without archiving. You have almost 10,000 edits and you should be observing a much higher standard of conduct in not just your edits but your general behavior as well. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  21:40, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Unborn Baby Gorden
Done. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 00:41, October 12, 2014 (UTC)