LedgendGamer

This is LedgendGamer's talk page, which shouldn't come across as too much of a surprise.
Here because I reverted your edit? If it wasn't obvious why I did it, you can ask me here. If you're feeling a little offended or angry about it, calm down first. Please sign your posts, it makes life much easier for everyone. Click here to start a new topic.	More policies! Be polite Avoid personal attacks
It is approximately 1:20 AM where I live. If I don't respond, I might be asleep or away.(Refresh)

Success

YES! Orianthi got a page! It's because Michael Jackson died, and they started to mention her on the news. Anyway, thank you. Sickened (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That's great to hear. Congratulations. —LedgendGamer 23:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I got a message from you about a change I made to the "Beloved" article... I don't think I've ever MADE a change to ANY article, so I'm not sure you got the recipient of that message right? Might want to check on it. SJM

Beloved

I got a message from you about a change I made to the "Beloved" article... I don't think I've ever MADE a change to ANY article, so I'm not sure you got the recipient of that message right? Might want to check on it. SJM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.192.208 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This edit came from your IP. IPs are frequently reassigned, and someone other than you might have made the edit. Looking at the page history, though, there is no doubt that the edit in question came from your IP. It just may have not come from you. If you know you didn't make an edit, the warning isn't intended for you and you can safely ignore it. The problem stems from IPs being anonymous and, in some cases, very frequently reassigned. —LedgendGamer 22:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

You are removing my contribution to the Violists page. I hope you will stop this destructive action at once. Thank you.

I have explained myself several times. Going to my talk page will not change anything - the list is technically a disambiguation page, and we can't have disambiguation pages with red links. I remove red links on sight on other disambiguation pages, and I will do so here. Creating the article will solve your problem. —LedgendGamer 05:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but YOU are the vandal

I have seen the posts on your talk page, and it is evident that you are vandalizing the entries of several of users of Wikipedia. You have said that my problem would be sorted out by creating "the article," yet when I corrected the information contained on the page of Ashan Pillai--there had not been any sort of references to the claims on that page--you continued disrupting by erasing my corrections. Either you or the creator of that Pillai page was allowed to mixed truth with untruths, and finally someone placed references there. Yet when I am editing pages, you immediately erase my material. This is going to get nasty, because whether you like it or not, I am allowed to use this open-source page.

Vandalism: Any deliberate attempt to disrupt or harm the encyclopedia or its workings. This is getting amusing. You seem to have no idea of what vandalism is and isn't. Correcting incorrect changes and discreetly fixing mistakes is not vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not vandalism. Every single entry on my talk page complaining about me "vandalizing" their edits was made by a vandal or by someone who was confused and mistaken. In the case of the confused people, I explained and eliminated their confusion, and they left happy.

I have never edited Ashan Pillai - you can see for yourself in the page history for the article. I want nothing to do with the article. The only problem I have with your edits is that you insist on adding a link to a nonexistent page (Eriq Koontz) to a list of articles contained within the encyclopedia about violin players. If an article does not exist (or is not about a violin player, but that's not the issue), it cannot be added to the list.

You also seem to be confused as to what "the article" is. I thought that it was clear, so I wasn't specific. The article I was referring to that needs to be created before you add it to the list is Eriq Koontz. This is why I reverted edits like this that you made.

I would suggest that you read WP:VAND. It will eliminate your confusion as to me "vandalizing". Furthermore, I never called you a vandal. The level 1 warning I gave you assumes good faith.

As for getting nasty, the Administrator's Noticeboard is located here. Have fun. You have taken this much farther than it needed to go. While I apologize for being a bit of a dick (I should have reverted the edit an hour or so after you made it instead), I will not hesitate to defend my position. —LedgendGamer 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: art portal vandalism section on Newgrounds article

Yeah that's a good point, we don't want to give them attention. Shall I edit it so that it has no mention of the group in question, e.g. "a fairly insignificant Newgrounds spam group took over the account of Egoraptor" etc., that will give them the impression that they aren't really much at all.

Tell me what you think Eewawoowa (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have edited it to this, just revert it again if you still strongly disagree with me.

OK. I removed the line about insignificant, just opting to not mention their significance or name them at all. We don't want to bluntly insult them, it's unprofessional. I would prefer to use a more reliable reference than a forum post (if anyone else notices they'll probably wind up removing it), but it will do until (if) we can nail down something better. Since Tom seems to intend to keep it quiet, it'll just have to stay that way.

It might still wind up getting removed at some point in the future; eventually it comes down to a debate about whether a single attack is important enough to get added to the article. If the article ever makes it to featured status, the section will probably be removed outright anyways.

Thanks for being reasonable and logical. I'm sick of wiki-drama at the moment. —LedgendGamer 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Missed Vandalism Undo

Sorry about that, I get the dumb captcha whenever I try to undo large removals, and as a result it take a couple of edits to undo it all :S. Once they autoconfirm me then this won't continue to happen. Ajraddatz Talk Contributions 03:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're fast, I was right about to leave a message on your talk page pointing out the importance of checking all of a user's edits. I checked your edit count, so I was about to welcome you as well. I have two pieces of advice for you. First, there's a different way to revert edits than undoing all of them individually. If you click on the timestamp of the most recent 'good' version of the page and then click on the edit button, you'll be able to save the old version of the page, which effectively reverts all of the edits since then. I used that trick before I got a proper anti-vandalism tool.

Second, when you're autoconfirmed (just 2 more days of waiting), you can install Twinkle. It basically mimics the rollback function (with a bunch of other useful stuff), which is really helpful. It's worth taking a look at, at least. The only downside is that it doesn't work in Internet Explorer.

Happy editing! —LedgendGamer 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it's generally a really bad idea to use a template for your signature. There's more detail here. —LedgendGamer 04:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Just so you know, I do know how to undo properly, but I am not used to being not autoconfirmed. With every edit that I undo, I first check the history to make sure that I don't need to undo a number of revisions at once. Unfortunately, with the captcha (er... spellcheck please), once I am done typing in the confirmation the IP has edited again, or someone has undone it :S. I do actually have wiki experience, in fact quite a lot of it, and just stop by Wikipedia to undo vandalism (see my userpage). As for the templated sig, it is a personal preference. Thanks,

Ajraddatz Talk Contributions 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you edit on Wikia. Okay. I'm sorry for the confusion, it's unusual to see someone with 57 edits going on about substantial wiki experience. —LedgendGamer 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I am also use to my 15,000 edits following me around :). As for the templated sig, thanks for telling me about it. It is now changed. Have a great day, Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 04:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you stole my admin intervention report :P. Good counter-vandalism work, by the way. You edit conflict me a lot, and that is a good thing :) Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh, it just so happens that I was wondering earlier today how many people I've edit-conflicted whilst vandal-fighting. It's good to see that you're helping out too. Why not go for Rollback? It took me until 3500 edits to stop being stubborn about it, but I'm really confident that no admin in their right mind would deny you, particularly given the wikia experience you have. It'll also let you use Huggle (which I'm still being stubborn about). —LedgendGamer 05:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually just requested rollback. Heh, you just got another one that I was going for XD Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 05:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, when it's granted, you might want to take a look at User talk:Gracenotes/rollback.js. It lets you use a summary with your rollbacks (if you want to). I love using it, for the stuff that I would normally use the regular rollback option on Twinkle for. Mind, I can't guarantee that it'll work on vector. —LedgendGamer 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe I will need to switch back to monobook... Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I have downloaded Huggle, but all I get is a white screen in the middle where the revisions should be. Everything else works fine; can you think of what the problem is or will I need to ask around on the help IRC channel. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm the absolute worst person to ask for Huggle help. I've never used it myself and probably won't for a long time, and I've never even seen it working outside of the screenshot on the documentation page. You'll have to ask someone else, either on IRC or the Huggle talk page. —LedgendGamer 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks :) Ajraddatz (Talk - Contributions) 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Timeless roofing.

Good call on the timeless roofing article! Politoman (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —LedgendGamer 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

T0sh.0

I agree that it's not entirely impossible as a search term. I do think it's unlikely, and I do know that it contains a completely inappropriate version in its history that can still be linked back to. Mind if I revert your redirect and I'll create a new one once this version is deleted? --Onorem♠Dil 05:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point with the history. Go ahead. —LedgendGamer 05:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. --Onorem♠Dil 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiout

WuhWuzDat 05:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Something tells me the wiki-apocalypse will happen, but I'm in. —LedgendGamer 06:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)