You reverted two edits at CJ Stubbs. The first one of course did not call for a citation. Which was your issue (with the second one) 184.153.21.19 (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. @184.153.21.19: I am using the anti-vandalism tool Huggle, which reverts all consecutive edits made by the same user. This means that even if some of the edits are made in good faith, they will still be included in the reversion as long as they are in consecutive order. Which particular diff are you referring to? I will help restore that version once I review it and confirm it is correct. - Arcrev1 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- it has now been addressed. But I would urge you not use Huggle then for non-vandalism. There was zero vandalism in what you sought to revert - just the absence of a ref, I. One of the edits. It’s very bad practice to use an anti-vandalism tool for non-vandalism, and for you to delete a number of proper edits that preceded the non-vandal edit you are reverting. When there are consecutive edits, I would urge you to not use the tool unless you see consecutive edits that call for reverting. Otherwise - you are causing damage. Which I know is not your intention. Plus - this has nothing to do with the fact that the edits that you reverted were in good faith. It is beyond that. They were “proper” edits, that clearly improve the article, and it is not proper for you to delete them.--184.153.21.19 (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @184.153.21.19: Huggle is a tool for anti-vandalism, here is its description. Although it is an anti-vandalism tool, that does not mean it is only used for vandalism or bad faith edits. Huggle offers more than 20 revert options, not only for disruptive edits and vandalism but also for good faith edits such as unsourced addition of information, BLP violations, original research, manual of style issues, and factual errors. It is not just for vandalism. Now, if you want me to stop using Huggle just because I reverted your good faith edits, I reverted them in good faith and gave you a warning along with helpful links so you can study Wikipedia's guidelines. Tell me, is this wrong? - Arcrev1 (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, you are saying that this could cause damage? Adding information without citing a source in Wikipedia articles, is that not also damage? If you have a problem with my reversion, you can raise it on the talk page. Your version of the edit can easily be retrieved with just one click, so why make it a big deal? Just tell me if that version is correct and I will restore it for you. To tell me not to use Huggle for non-vandalism edits is inaccurate, because Huggle is not used only for vandalism. Otherwise, I would have written in the edit summary that your edit was vandalism. - Arcrev1 (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This happened to me, too. Today you reverted several edits to Ferdinand Porsche, including corrections for mistakes, stating that they lacked proper sourcing. Correcting an error, such as including a book citation that isn't used and belongs to the "Further Reading" section does not require sourcing. Reverting such corrections makes Wikipedia less reliable and readable. It also discourages participation in this project. I first edited Wikiped twenty years ago, but stopped because I had a feeling that I'm wasting my time. I was hoping that the project has matured by now. Clearly, I was mistaken. While I don't condemn the use of tools such as Huggle, it clearly isn't foolproof. 76.91.30.100 (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @76.91.30.100: It can really be discouraging to edit if you do not follow the guidelines. There is no problem, just follow them and you will not be reverted. I already replied on the talk page of the article you are working on. There is no guideline that says cross-reference is a source, so do not create your own guideline. - Arcrev1 (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminder, as WP:Huggle says,
You take full responsibility for any actions taken using Huggle. You must read and understand all relevant Wikipedia policies and abide by them when using this tool; failure to do so may result in you losing access to the tool or being blocked from editing. ; while "the tool did this" may be an explanation for your actions, it's not a defense for it; it's your responsibility to make sure you don't revert more than you should using any tool. And the same will be true for AWB when you get access to it; you are responsible for your own edits, and "but AWB genfixes did this" is no more of a defense than "but Huggle did this". * Pppery * it has begun... 04:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pppery: I am still getting familiar with Huggle, and although I have been using it for a few months, there are still things I do not know, such as how to revert a single diff edit from a user without affecting their subsequent constructive edits. I have never blamed Huggle for reverting constructive edits; I only mention it to explain why it happened and why it might have seemed to them that I let it happen. Once you revert an edit, you cannot go back to that diff—you may not know whether it was truly unconstructive or not, or sometimes you might misclick without realizing it. I am not blaming Huggle, which is why I asked which diff was constructive so I could restore it. I might not even know which article it was; they can just tell me. - Arcrev1 (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Just making sure you were aware of the standards, since your comments above gave me the impression you might not be. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pppery: Thank you for visiting my talk page. I will make a greater effort to patrol the recent changes page diligently, and I will address any editors who raise concerns about my reverts in a proper and respectful manner. I will also refrain from mentioning the tools on Wikipedia in a way that could be seen as using them to justify my actions. - Arcrev1 (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pppery Arcrev1 thank for rolling back the revert. I spent hours of my time correcting mistakes and cross-referencing other pre-existing Wikipedia articles. It's really discouraging to see most of that being reverted with the rationale that it lacks sources. Especially when I actually added 8 new sources. There is a whole section in that article (Ferdinand Porsche) that has a "missing sources" notice since 2017 - nothing has been done about that. I realize that vandalism is a real problem, but it's also quite discouraging to see a lot of good-faith effort go up in smoke. I have since added additional twenty new sources and intend to continue cleaning up that article. 76.91.30.100 (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted several of my edits to the Ferdinand Porsche article. These edits were all properly sourced. Either by other Wikipedia articles that I linked to or by external references. Additionally, you have reverted several corrections to the article as well. I responded to your notice on my talk page. Unless I hear back, I will rollback your revert and work out any outstanding issues in discussion with other editors. I first edited this article in 2005.
Hello, sorry for taking this decision without telling it, i removed some information from the article due to the lack of sufficent info to confirm the content i removed and i decided to deleting it due to the lack of reliable sources to confirm them, for now, i need to find more sources to find and add to the article and i will trying to improve it. Emilio Paolo Suárez Zambrano (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Emilio Paolo Suárez Zambrano: Hello, thank you for clarifying, this was a mistake caused by a misinterpretation of the edit. - Arcrev1 (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arcrev1! Thanks for your work patrolling recent changes. I just wanted to suggest that you be a little more careful not to unnecessarily revert new users' changes to their own page creations. I've noticed several times today, including on Moemoana Schwenke and CEERS2-588, where you've reverted changes made by those pages' sole authors on the basis of unexplained content removal. We should give a fair bit of latitude when someone is actively creating a new page and might want to experiment with restructuring content or removing some of what they had previously written. In this edit, you actually just reverted the addition of a citation and returned a statement to being unsourced. Just something to be mindful of in future. Thanks :) MCE89 (talk) 06:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @MCE89: Alright, thank you for saying that. - Arcrev1 (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you removed information I added for Srul Irving Glick. It was information I did not need to cite, I am his granddaughter and have personal access to his information. Medddie (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, please note that editing about yourself, people close to you, or organizations you are connected with may create a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). This can affect neutrality. - Arcrev1 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- this was only editing one date and updating the name of his wife, these are verifiable facts. Thank you for your diligence. Medddie (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
