User talk:Camdennator11

Reverting a perfectly reasonable redirect with a snippy edit summary

Greetings, I'm Exemplo347. I've noted that you have reverted my redirection of a Promotional article, with "Vandalism will not be tolerated" as an Edit Summary. Please be more careful with your use of Huggle - verify that the edit you are reverting is definitely vandalism before you revert it. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Error

Before you accuse me of vandalism - i suggest you take a look at the history of the page in question. I have reverted your edit. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response

You nearly blanked the whole page and I consider that vandalism

No, the user added text by mistake, then corrected it - you then reverted him citing vandalism, when all they did was correct their error. You then proceeded to revert me when I corrected you. If you consider that Vandalism, then you need to stop reverting people, because you are making errors in judgement and not helping the project. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 15:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apple TV

Please don't automatically revert any IP address without actually checking the quality of the edit. Equinox ◑ 13:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Are the Ocean

Hello Camdennator11! I see that others have come here to complain that you have reverted something that is not vandalism. First, I'll add my own complaint: at We Are the Ocean you reverted a ip correcting formally (officially/in a formal manner) to formerly (previously/in the past). I'm dyslexic so I often get words mixed up and if I'm unsure of a words use/definition a quick google usually helps. Secondly, let me offer you some advice: if in doubt, don't act. If you aren't sure if something is vandalism, leave it be; another editor will come along and correct/revert it if needed. I see you have caught a lot of vandalism among the few errors you have made, so thank you for those edits. Keep up the good work, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise

With regard to the article Steroid, why are registered editors not allowed to edit the article? I am a former Prof, and a PhD chemist. Why are expert changes not allowed? Is there not a better way to protect, from vandalism, for instance, limiting editing to registered editors, and them marking the article for close attention? Cheers. LeProf Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Camdennator11. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]