You are unwittingly removing content, if indeed ESC is the primary topic of the disamiguation page, then that page should be moved so that there is a disambig page for ESC, you can't just remove all of the 20+ other links on that page and redirect it just because one of them is more popular! That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 11:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Voiceprint and TACtv
Hi Thecheesykid.
It wasn't a spam update. I was providing links to that user so that he could have the correct references for the websites he is trying to edit. Would it be possible to reinstate my comment onhis talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpearson ami (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I've put the information back but the IP can do with the information what he wills. Thanks for the note. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 13:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you, dear Thecheesykid, for reverting the inappropriate vandalism on my talk page. I was working on something when I was sent an email that that little troll had added gibberish to my talk page. (No, I just got the standard email that my talk page was just changed.) I then found out that the latest reversion was by "Thecheesykid". and I saw the edit that the troll made. Completely rude and uncool. >:p
Well anyways, it is always nice to see someone helpful, kind, polite, and extremely nice to me on Wikipedia. I had been a user on another site [I prefer not to share the name...but it's pretty large] for two years and I admit that the community there had been nothing but rude to me. Always writing messages to me in ALL CAPS, lie to me, give me no warnings about my wrongdoing, and additionally never welcomed me to the site. I am never going back there. My talk page messages on WP are extremely nice, welcoming to me as a new(ish) user, and kindly point out my wrongdoing. That's the only way some troublemaker can learn...if they are pointed out exactly what they did wrong...:-)
I am extremely proud of myself to find a nice, courteous group of users that strive to erase WP's vandalism, you among them. I am looking forward to pick up editing on Wikipedia and hopefully I will contribute avidly and happily.
Always best regards to you and the other vandal-fighters, continue to keep the hard work and good faith coming...[BTW, I already added a whois to that troll's talk page]
I urge you to review WP:MINOR, as you seem to have a habit of marking changes as minor that do not fall within the definition. (At a glance, it appears you're under the impression that reverting a change is minor. First of all, making a significant change from the previous version of the page isn't minor by any definition, even if you're undoing a change that was just made, even if it was simple vandalism. Secondly, if your thinking is that nobody would agree with this change that someone else made, and therefore it's uncontroversial -- and minor -- to undo it, it makes less sense to mark your reversion as minor, because for someone who has that page on their Watchlist, and chooses to ignore minor changes, it will appear to that person that the previous change -- the one nobody would agree with -- has not been reverted.)
I would also like to point out that if someone has made an edit and clearly made an effort to explain as clearly and fully as possible why they have made that edit, reverting it with no explanation appears pretty rude. We have that "edit summary" box for a reason. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I use WP:Huggle, which automatically marks edits as minor. Secondly, I reverted your edit because it seemed to make no sense at all, RACE (in caps) should link to the disambig page that contains all acronyms filed under RACE. Cheers. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 14:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"RACE (in caps) should link to the disambig page that contains all acronyms filed under RACE. Cheers." Well, that page doesn't exist (since RACE didn't list all such acronyms) and clearly people have looked for usages of RACE acronyms at the Race page. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Then create a link to RACE on the Race (disambiguation) page, don't just remove the article. As I've said in a discussion that you've started on the talk page, CAN and Can mean different things. As do RACE and Race. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason to make the user look through all the "Race" links for their target topic and then send them to a second page looking for it, when it doesn't hurt the Race page at all to just add the three "RACE" entries that weren't already there. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I asked you why you marked all your edits as minor, that I didn't think should be marked as such; you said it was because Huggle did it automatically, which I assumed was your full answer. If you were waiting for me to ask you why Huggle did it automatically, I'm not sure why you would have expected me to ask you instead of the Huggle people. (And, as I acknowledged at the Huggle page, I was mistaken about what WP:MINOR says about vandalism, although I'm now seeking to understand why it says what it does, because it doesn't make sense to me. But if you feel you're due an apology for my mistakenly suggesting that you were applying it in error, even though I accepted your apparent explanation that it wasn't your choice in any case, then I'm sorry about that.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I just love flags and I am in a good mode, please accept this flag because I happened to stumble across your page. Nice one btw. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 20:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reverts to my user/talk pages. Honestly, some of that was (grotesquely) hilarious since I'm a chick and, therefore, anatomically incapable of the acts said vandal described me doing. What can I say; I'm easily entertained. Millahnna (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for for putting on record my mistake. It was a mistake and I was honest. My thing is when putting a spectulative source, best to back it up with one or two more. It is hear say. I put on my talk page two examples where political reporters said a candidate was about to enter the race, only for them to not do so. If your interested, read here: [1]. Thank you again though for defending me, it was a small mistake. America69 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, your note at the top of this page I find very fitting for this moment! =)America69 (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The article Rita Bennett you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Rita Bennett for things which need to be addressed. If you need some help copy-editing it, I could do it for you tomorrow evening, though I'm afraid I'd be of no help whatsoever with the sourcing. GRAPPLEX 03:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Had a look at the changes, and the article has now passed. Well done! GRAPPLEX 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you did in making 2012 (film) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. (Pictured: the end of the world.)
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
Thank you! I'm currently reviewing an X-Files episode, and generally take on around three in a week, so I'll certainly see what I can do. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 14:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thecheesykid, thank you for the GA nomination. As the principal author of the article, I believe the article needs a lot of work primarily for the themes section. I have not had the time to bring it up to the standards of GA. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well you've done a great job, I'm essentially just tidying up after the masterwork. I'm fairly sure that the themes section doesn't really need to be huge, a few quotes is good enough. I'm just worried about the dead links that I'm going to have to go through and replete (there are around 14 now I think, but there were more). If you could help me out that would be fantastic! Cheers. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 18:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The dead links are somewhat discouraging. I have not been able to find similar references to replace them. I will continue to look. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Great work! I salute you for your ongoing efforts to eliminate Wikipedia's persistent vandalism! Someday, the little trolls will give up and leave... Bryce53 | talk 06:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Rita Bennett a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
For your amazing edits to GA's. MayhemMario 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The article Up in the Air (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Up in the Air (film) for things which need to be addressed. —Andrewstalk 08:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
What, you aiming for a Degree in Understatement from Ironic University or something? Cheers, anyhoo! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll have you know that that university is very prestigious, or should I say... meh, it's okay. #power chord# waheeey. Oh and no problem. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 12:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
This barn star is for your continued efforts to upgrade articles, such as Up in the Air (film), to GA. Dan Dassow (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Diligence you say? You've done very great work on this article too, I feel as if this should be the other way round, so to recompense... That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 15:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to add my congratulations as well. Thanks for you work, well done. – Quadell(talk) 23:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Thecheesykid. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page. Message added 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Great anti-vandalism work! Wikipedia highly appreciates it; vandals will come up forever, and they won't leave! (Do you like cheeseburgers?) Bryce53 | talk 10:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You did not use an edit summary so it just looked like removal of content, in future please summarize any potentially controversial edits in the summary box. Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 19:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
They are only controversial to one editor, and people who don't know the whole story. --Blur in 2 1 (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by that? An edit that removes content is generally considered controversial. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 19:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a general consensus that the content in question is against policy. Only one editor seems to disagree. These kinds of edits are generally either reverted by him or people who don't know that there's a consensus to remove this stuff. --Blur in 2 1 (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I'm not in disagreement with you. I'm just saying that for other editors (people who don't have the full story) you should leave a notice informing them of what's going on, so that they don't misconstrue and mistakenly revert. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Also one other thing, the title you made of this topic is just plain mean and rude. Think of a more better nicer tilte next time :) MayhemMario 19:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI, it's polite to ask the main contributor of an article before nominating it for GA status. But I'll help you out once this gets a review! Theleftorium(talk) 16:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Terribly sorry, didn't mean to be rude, just trying to get a deserving article up to GA status. Thanks for your offer to help, it would be much appreciated. That Ole Cheesy Dude(Talk to the hand!) 16:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, I don't have the tools to block editors, you could take it to Fastily or MuZemike?
First, WP:AIV is your friend. Second, if you open Special:Block, you would've noticed that the action is only limited to administrators, which Thecheesykid is not. And yes, Fastily and MuZemike are two administrators willing to handle blocks. I'd also say Favonian. Plus, IP addresses cannot be blocked indefinitely. Cheers. Bryce53 | talk 03:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a friendly greeting
SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I know how working hard on Wikipedia can make someone hungry, so I hope you'll enjoy this cookie. SwisterTwistertalk 05:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I Jethrobot has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Hi Thecheesykid, and thanks for watching over my talk page! I just wanted to let you know that this wasn't real trolling - it was a legitimate question about an edit on the article Vauxhall that I reverted. I can understand the reaction though - I don't like the idea of Lord Voldemort wandering around the middle of London in real life either... — Mr. Stradivarius♫ 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Malleus
To be fair, I provoked him when he clearly didn't care about the article I was editing, and even insulted him before his... outburst. --Boycool (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
@Boycool42: Your responses just above and at AN/I are very much appreciated. It's refreshing to see an editor say "oops, my bad" in a heated situation, so my hat's off to you for that.
@Thecheesykid: I closed the AN/I thread in part because, after reading the actual background of the situation, and noticing it differed substantially from the way you presented it, I felt it was certain boomerangs were going to head your way for being misleading. My advice is to respect that closure and stop poking at it; Boycool42's already done the right thing and acknowledged his part in the situation; just let it go. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
