User talk:Rsrikanth05/Archive May 2010
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
- Book review: Review of The World and Wikipedia
- News and notes: iPhone app update, Vector rollout for May 13, brief news
- In the news: Government promotes Tamil Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject U.S. Roads
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
- From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted
- Commons deletions: Porn madness
- Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide
- News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All
- In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
- News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum
- In the news: In the news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
- News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Wikipedia Bill", unsourced bios declining
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Rollback
Hello. Could you clarify for me why you think this edit is vandalism? CIreland (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your reversion and continued my edits. Please check the discussion page for justifications before jumping to conclusions of vandalism. If you were using some sort of automatic tool, I apologize.
I'll assume that this edit was an error, and I thank you for your veracity on these pages. It looks as if that in the past, that particular page was subject to some vandalism, and therefore heightened scrutiny is indeed justified. That heightened scrutiny and my own veracity led me to believe that campaign literature is not a suitable source for Wikipedia for a number of reasons. See the discussion page for additional info.Alaclerk (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)