User talk:Geraldo Perez
| This is Geraldo Perez's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
Rollback
Hi, I noticed some seemingly dubious uses of rollback in your recent contributions. I see that you had similar issues last year (User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 32#Your use of rollback). I see no good reason to use rollback with e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. These are all from today, and while some were perhaps not necessary changes or improvements, none seemed to be vandalism and multiple were correct additions of information. You didn't give an explanation or warning for any of these as far as I can see. Can you please either explain these or else be a lot more careful with rollback use? Fram (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am checking edits from problematic IPs mostly. The range 12.190.236.0/24 is used by just blocked for block evasion Special:Contributions/12.190.236.16 and other edits in that range follow the pattern. I have given talk page warnings to the blocked IP on other accounts he uses such as redundant categories being added see User talk:74.75.112.118. Generally I am less inclined to give edit summaries on reverts of changes a problematic IP made that didn't give an edit summary particularly when I have interacted with them before for similar edits. General issues are redundant categories I have already warned the editor about and unsourced content being added such as editor invented alternative names. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Without a notice, a block, a warning, ... there is no way for anyone to tell why you reverted these, and no indication that these are problematic IPs or not. Something like this is "editor invented alternative names", the same title is used further in the article. It was probably a mistake by the editor (the Pingu Show seems to be a programming block around Pingu), but nothing that warrants rollback. Same for this. Here you rollback an actual improvement, reinserting the wrong date (the source for the correct date was already in the article[9]). In general, I have the impression that you have become somewhat trigger-happy with rollback, perhaps due to having to deal with some longtime pests. But for people noticing your changes on their watchlists, there are too many unexplained and at first sight unexplainable rollbacks between the correct ones. Fram (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The birth date "fix" conflicted with the birthdate as reported by the mother in her social media post which I did check before reverting. The re-order of nationalities put the primary one second and was done without giving a reason. The other editor has a history of making up alt names - what goes in the article is supposed to be official ones with sourcing. My reading of WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5 is that the user being reverted needs to be informed of what is happening and why, which I generally do for a series of problematic edits I revert. Informing other reviewers of why each revert happens sort of undermines the usefulness of rollback for quickly fixing problems. Some of the issues is with dynamic IPs particularly in /64 ranges. I check the range for problematic edit patterns and the actual IP talk page of the info warning message may not match later edits. I do try to keep to the guidelines and use rollback appropriately. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Without a notice, a block, a warning, ... there is no way for anyone to tell why you reverted these, and no indication that these are problematic IPs or not. Something like this is "editor invented alternative names", the same title is used further in the article. It was probably a mistake by the editor (the Pingu Show seems to be a programming block around Pingu), but nothing that warrants rollback. Same for this. Here you rollback an actual improvement, reinserting the wrong date (the source for the correct date was already in the article[9]). In general, I have the impression that you have become somewhat trigger-happy with rollback, perhaps due to having to deal with some longtime pests. But for people noticing your changes on their watchlists, there are too many unexplained and at first sight unexplainable rollbacks between the correct ones. Fram (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)