User talk:Doubleyoupea

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doubleyoupea.

Welcome!

Hello, Doubleyoupea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Sorry, I meant to nominate Characters and Caricaturas at WP:DYK, but clean forgot. Still, it is a lovely article. -- !! ?? 13:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, don't worry about it, just one of those that I thought should exist. WP (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Manuel de Godoy, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Manuel de Godoy was changed by Doubleyoupea (u) (t) deleting 14265 characters on 2009-05-26T02:01:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Manuel de Godoy constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't; please put more thought into your templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked through both edits that I reverted on Manuel de Godoy made by User:Doubleyoupea and both removed very extensive portions of source material, gutting major portions of the article each time. The first edit offered no explanation whatsoever for the extensive content removal other than stating that Cluebot was being reverted. Extensive removal of sourced content combined with no explanation in an edit summary is almost always vandalism and I had no reason to believe that there was justification to remove the sourced content that had been in the article that I had read and reviewed. The second edit included an edit summary that seemed to challenge my ignorance for making the revert but offered no explanation of the changes, and I reread the article and again saw extensive content removed, including significant portions of sourced material, and saw no justification. Rather than explaining the edits, the edit summary of the second edit and the message left here were both consistent with the type of "no, you're the vandal, I dare you to revert" messages left by vandals, nor did the small handful of edits in the past made by this user give me any confidence that this would be someone who had the ability to make major changes in one fell swoop to an article of this scale and scope. I saw no discussion of the edits on the talk page for the article and the original edit seemed to be a kneejerk undoing of a Cluebot reversion of removed content. I do apologize for the terse templates, but that's what Huggle provides. I guess that it is possible that more detective work might have uncovered the fact that these edits were productive, but the combination of the pattern of evidence that I had seen -- removal of extensive portions of sourced content, edit summary offering no explanation other than a revert of Cluebot, a message left on my talk page that offered little more than a claim of vandalism on my part, no discussion on the article take page, an editor who had no more than a few dozen edits and few recent edits making a very major change to an article that seemed to be primarily removing content -- all led me to the conclusion that this was vandalism. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]