User talk:Cst17 - Wikipedia

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 10:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please stop reposting personal attacks to User talk:66.102.80.212. These were placed by an abusive user as part of a content dispute; your continual reposting of this nonsense is vandalism. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't delete warnings without comment, otherwise people keep on putting them back. Cst17 (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:66.102.80.212, I wanted to leave you a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk page. While we may prefer that messages be archived, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous users- from deleting comments from their own talk pages. The only talk page messages that may not be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates (for anonymous editors) ... and these exceptions are just to keep a user from gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the reminder. Cst17 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

For reverting vandalism to my user pageKillkola (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I undid your revert. The edit was to remove the Prod tag, this consttiutes as contested prod. Hence it should not be treated as vandal. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page!--Woland (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you associated with Wikipedia? I am on the school board at John Carroll and we have been monitoring JCCHS due to the inappropriate postings.Bcassoc (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No I'm not, I am just a recent changes patroller. Cst17 (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

How can the term 'pro-choice' be acceptable but the term 'pro-life' is not? This double standard in unacceptable and does not belong on wikipedia. I can think of ways that both can be considered POV terms. They are either both in...or both out! You want to discuss the terms, well then let's discuss them...but don't warn me for vandilizing when I am not the one who's been undoing all the edits.24.37.126.33 (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am juist restopring the version of yesterday. Please discuss this matter at the Talkpage and do not start an edit war. Cst17 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fine I just did but to be fair you should perhaps warn the other person as well. I am being unfairly targeted and my edits are being erased for no sensible reason. I back up my sources and comment on the changes while the other user does not, yet im the one who gets warned.24.37.126.33 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

A while back ago, you reverted vandalism. I was just recently reviewing my userpage history (because of recent vandalism >.< ) and found that you had reverted vandalism unappreciated. Thank you, and sorry for the delay! Leonard^(Bloom) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi: Would you kindly provide your opinion about the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal for the article about Alan Cabal? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have given my opion. If so many people like him, there must be mediacoverage about him as a journalist. I would say userfy and reenter as soon as you have some of those independent references (an article about him in his own papers or magazine doesn't do it). And please don't take it personal if an article you like has been deleted, happens all the time.Cst17 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess that will have to be the route to take: userfy and reenter. I was skeptical of the independence of opinion of some of the editors, several were from the previous AFD, and needed to have the opinion of uninvolved editors. Thanks! -Manhattan Samurai (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, saw your reversion of 72.140.79.137's edits to this page which you identified as vandalism and think you might be mistaken on this. Could you review the edit and then, if you agree, remove your warning from the editor's talk page? Thanks, Avnjay^Talk 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was a removal of content without comment. The comment on the last edit makes things clear.Cst17 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply