User talk:Kyle1278-2


User	Talk	Workshop	Sandbox	History	eMail	Contributions

This is Kyle1278-2's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Status: Online

Template:MsgEmail

Archives

February-March 09
Archive Special

I have two requests for people coming here:

If you intend to revert personal attacks could you please use the {{subst:unsigned|user name|date}} template instead.
If you are here to complain about something I edited could you please tell me the name of the article that you are talking about. If you do I will respond but if you don't I will ignore you.

Philip DeFranco image

I removed it again. Per WP:NFCC we can only use free images of living people. I just got one for KevJumba by emailing him. If you want to know how to do that, contact me on my talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can contact him here. Ask him to send you an email including a photo and the words "I release this image under creative commons attribution 3.0" or "I release this image under the GFDL" or "I release this image into the public domain". Then you upload the image at commons and follow the OTRS instructions at here. User:Cirt checked the OTRS for me, he's pretty quick about it. You may want to explain that our rules require a free image, and that his wikipedia article gets thousands of hits. Here's the text of the email I sent to Kevjumba. You can modify it if you want.

I need you to say in an email reply "I release these images under the GFDL" ,or "I release these images under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported", or "I release these images into the public domain"

So you know, all of these will allow everyone (including wikipedia) the following three rights to your photos. 1) Modification 2) Redistribution 3) Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes.

Sometimes people don't like number 3, so you may want to think about it. I know of someone in Australia who was unhappy after releasing an image of themselves. A travel agency used it in an advertisement, which they didn't like. It's really not that big of a deal, since every picture of a living person on wikipedia is there under the same rules, but I just want to be clear becuase the licenses are irrevocable.

The difference between the three is that the GFDL is for Linux geeks, the creative commons one is the one that some Flickr images come under, and public domain doesn't require a note saying that the image came from you, unlike the first two. I recommend the creative commons one myself, but choose whichever you like.

Good luck. It's kind of a pain in the ass, but once you get the image, no one will ever remove it, which is pretty cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I forgot to say, there are (too) detailed instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images and too ask Cirt on his user page to check it after you upload the image. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my artice.

They said it should be deleted but why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IceRules (talk • contribs) 22:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                         --IceRules (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sxephil.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Sxephil.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyle,

I'm new to this. I want to state that it was not blatant advertising. I wanted to place it under the wiki news but ended up here. I'm not in any way associated with FIFA or Ticketing for this. I'm just trying to get my hands and feet wet in to the world of wiki. Just wanted to clarify this.

Thanks Ganesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvenkat5 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories

Just wanted to let you know that if you use {{clear}} like this you get the same effect as the multiple lines. The other advantage is that this does not happen. One of the automatic edits made by Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser is to remove all the empty lines which spoils the page but may not be noticed by the person using it. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Edmonton

Thanks for your work on that list. Unfortunately, I've had to remove the image of William Hawrelak, as it was not free and I don't see the image's use there are being compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. If you'd like to further illustrate the article, all of the free images of Edmonton's mayors that I'm aware of can be found in Commons:Category:Mayors of Edmonton. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edmontonmillwoodswind.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Edmontonmillwoodswind.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

According to your rationale, that "you have to it needs more than just one soure it needs several. being shown once in one article dose not estsbish it notability", List of Internet phenomena would go from looking like this to looking like this. I've removed all of the phenomena that have either one source, or no sources at all. Only the ones that have "more than just one source" have been kept in this sandbox edit.

Incidentally, many of the ones I removed shared the same source; just like the Mudkip one you removed. Double standards much? You can't have it both ways. Please explain your rationale in regards to my editing to the standards you have set. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the source you provided is not nearly enough to establish notability it just because the other stuff on the page has one soure listed dose not mean they do not have more the have been discussed and came to the conclusion that they were notable you just added it with out any attempt at a discussion of providing sources just a little mention in a broad article is far from enough to be added. Kyle1278 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked there was no policy stating that every edit made to Wikipedia had to be discussed beforehand. There is also no policy that states more than one source is needed for material to eb included. I was bold and added the information because it is clearly an internet phenomena, and proven to be notable thanks to it being discussed by a reputable and reliable source such as Wall Street Journal. The point stands that according to the rationale you provided, the content on the page would be almost halved (from 49 000+ bytes to just over 26 000). There were five or six items that I removed in my demonstrative edit that shared one source as their only verification; clearly none of those would have been given much more discussion than the WSJ mnetion did. MelicansMatkin (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the top of the talk page on there the policy's is a bit different and the article you supplied does not fit that policy Google hits and popular on the internet dose not make it notable the one source you provided is not enough if you can find more and talk about it on the talk page then sure it can go up but in till then it can not. Kyle1278 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? The Wall Street Journal isn't just a throwaway Google source. It's an international daily newspaper with a readership graeter than 2 million. How can the Wall Street Journal possibly be seen as unnotable? I'm genuinely confused about that. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the Wall Street Journal is not reliable it the size of the article in it dose not pass as notability if you look at other links in the article the whole source is about the phenomena not like yours where its also about 4chan and other things and if you notice on the talk page it says reliable sources it mean there needs to be more than one. I'am not doing this to just target you i'm just trying to keep the article notable. Kyle1278 (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're not trying to target me, and I apologize if my posts are giving the impression that I feel that way. I also understand that you're just trying to keep the article as free from crap as possible. But there are still phenomena mentioned that don't have any sources at all. This article is used to source no less than 12 different phenomena in the article, making it similar to the citation I have provided. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not govern article content, and is therefore irrelevant here. Verifiability and NPOV are the major concerns for article content, and there are no such problems here. You are at 3RR on this article – do not revert again. Also, please punctuate properly. It facilitates intelligent discussion. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first person Seresin schooled on Notability, he is correct. Notability only governs the creation of articles, not adding to existent ones. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Kyle; you've been a good sport with this discussion, and I apologize again if I came across in the wrong way with the way I worded my posts. MelicansMatkin (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been discussed before, for example see what seresin says about nine comments down at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_(241-260)/Archive03#.22So_I_herd_u_like_mudkips.22_in_July_9.2C_2008_Wall_Street_Journal.2C_called_a_viral_phenomenon Habanero-tan (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted my page because and you gave the reason: 'it does not say why it is significant'. i do not see therefore why other band's pages are not deleted, because i used an already existing band's page as a template (no copyrighted material was used). Furthermore, I do not understand fully the purpose of this deletion, because i do not see that significancy is a viable point for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jworules (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subliminal Noise Deletion

My page was put up for 'speedy deletion' by you under article CSD A7. With all due respect, I fail to see how this applies, because I have made myself fully aware of the rules and regulations of wikipedia, and I fail to see also how my page is not significant. If this is the case, and my page is not significant, why are not more band's pages deleted? I fail to see your logic behind your deletion. Sorry to be so blunt, but I truly feel that the suggested deletion was harsh and by the time it took for you to delete it I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that it would be impossible for you to have read through the article in its entirity. I apologize, as I said, but I do not honestly feel that you are being fair. Please talk back. This is the page in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_Noise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jworules (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have said that the band wikipedia page is up for deletion because it is not notable enough. If this is so, you are suggesting that in this massive online encyclopedia with millions of pages that ALL of them are about successful, notable things. Well, there are not that many things that are as notable as you are suggesting, so I do not see how your argument holds up. Jworules (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

possibly, the bebo page is not a viable source. But surely this internet Encyclopedia would count as a viable source? If you would let us set a wikipedia page up, of course. Jworules (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we pushing for fairplay and manners on this page? Your comment just then contained neither. Maybe the mods on wikipedia could tell you that aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jworules (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you are saying that every single page on wikipedia has these sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jworules (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what every one of the millions of pages are. But it's free to edit, so people like you add stuff that needs to be deleted. Can you help us out by marking the articles that aren't notable for deletion? Thanks. It's a lot of work. Habanero-tan (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kyle1278-2. You have new messages at Kelapstick's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey Kyle, looks like someone figured out the solution to your problem, (it's on my talk page), but it will update as soon as you save a change to the page...--kelapstick (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton

Hi Kyle, I (and probably we) appreciate all the work you've done on the article. However, using scrolling boxes for the ref section is generally frowned upon, as far as I can tell. For one thing, I'm pretty sure it messes up screen readers for blind people. We have at least one blind editor here that I know of and I'm sure many more who come to this site to learn. While I respect your desire to have the article you've worked so hard on look good, this is the encyclopedia for everyone in the world. Everyone.

Also, 150 footnotes is no big news. It's impressive but by no means record-setting. :) The scrollbox has no effect at all on the page-load time. And if you go to GA again with a scrollbox, I pretty much guarantee you will get a plain old NO. Regards & keep up the good work. Franamax (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you removed it i will not put it back. The reason i put it there is because of the Regina article i have removed it from there but people still but it back. If you could look into this i would be grateful. Kyle1278 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see what you mean. I've contacted the other editor on that topic. Accessibility is one of those issues that often gets overlooked.

Also, I've refactored this thread to keep it whole on your own talk page, in accordance with my stated preference. Regards! Franamax (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

I put the other map back. It's gives a clearer picture of where the place is in relationship to the rest of Canada. I also left a message on their talk page. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could sure use a better blank map of Canada which displays the territories. I admit mine was not the best but the infoboxes would look a lot better with a decent blank locator map displaying territory rather than the cluttered colourful one you insist on using. Also in future I would prefer you addressing me directly rather than seemingly telling tales to Cambridge weather, I don't know why you felt as if you couldn't say something to me myself Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Don't worry about. Good work on Nunavut anyway. I had wanted to use File:Canada location map.svg (my intention) but I didn't know the coordinates. Dutch wikipedia however had an even more disgusting looking lurid yellow map with coordinates which if you see I at least tried to improve it, probably to no avail though. I've requested that the svg map is added and coordinates found. If so it should be a good replacement, Cambridge also seems to agree. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually asked a few months ago to see if I could request some new maps for Canada. I didn't work out but I swore I'd tried to replace some of the ugly silver ones we have on some of the lower areas like Saskatchewan, Manitoba etc. What would look good I think is if we have a decent regional locator and then a national locator underneath, two lovely clear attractive maps to improve things . My only concern would be that it would lengthen the infoboxes a little but I think it might be a considerable improvement in regards to understanding where these places are. Actually though probably the most difficult maps on wikipedia with pins is America. A lot of the maps are very localised and they shouldn't be really, wikipedia is a global website so it should at least try to help people understand places nationally. I always think a regional and national locator go well together but we'll see how it looks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created a few yesterday like Template:Location map Canada Manitoba. These maps show the internal divisions too which helps I think. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I know they aren't perfect as I'm not a "professional" map maker like people like Nord are on here but they are certianly an improvement and look decent enough as a pin now. I would like to get hold of a decent map of Nunavut too, perhaps we could eventually get hold of a nice regional locator map for this region. A lot of people tend to neglect this region which I'm very glad editors like you and Cambridge are dedicated to improving. If you ever have any missing article requests, particularly settlements etc let me know and I'll try to generate a few using a map we agree on of course. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something like the map I created on the right. Major obstacle though is finding the coordinates to make it work. If so I would create a Location map Canada Nunavut asap for us to use. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Oops! My bad! My apologies! --Mhking (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Canada Vatican City Locator.png

Thanks for uploading File:Canada Vatican City Locator.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Canada Benin Locator.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Canada Benin Locator.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro^(talk) 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

I haev deleted the article Canada-Djibouti relations because it was copied from [1]. This website is not public domain but copyrighted, and Wikipedia articles may not consist of copyrighted material. Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also deleted a whole bunch of other articles for the same reason. Please don't create any more copyright violating articles. Fram (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good luck with the new tool, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello there

hello there kyle thankyou for your message, i apologise if i did not fill out box proplerly there seems to be large number of changes from fan who does not want anything on page but promotional info put out by artist, id be grateful for any help not just on this but in general as im always getting lost ...thans again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinnylizzy (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{fact}} tags in pace of the reverted [Citaion needed] markup. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's The Boss

I have a reference if you want it, or i could create a table as in other TV series 217.44.100.48 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London

My edits do not appear to be vandalism, please make sure you follow the Wiki guidelines correctly. Those sections are irrelevant and biased.

apologies

i now understand the enormous mistake i made in editing the Conan O'Brien article with false information. as a result i have decided to refrain from further vandalism. furthermore, i will use my expertise in the area of infomercials to contribute more helpful edits to related articles. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.15.203 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning?

Er, this appears to suggest the recent edit I made to cake was vandalism that has been reverted. Would that be this recent edit? The one that hasn't been reverted and is a restoration of an article that was blanked except for it's first line? Whats up with that? Huggle gone wrong?--Tangent747 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of report at WP:ANI

Hello, I noticed you nominated several images uploaded by Einsteinbud (talk · contribs) at WP:FfD. Just thought I'd let you know I have reported this user at WP:AN/I in case you were interested in contributing anything to the discussion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why did you delete my revisions? they were completely legit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.172.82 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

No problem. Cool3 (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance Retribution

According the both my going into GameStop and putting on the link to the site that says its out this friday, Resistance Retribution is yet to be realeased in Europe unlese you meant the demo for which I appologise, but that isn't the case so I don't appologise, I would appreciate it if you would stop lying to Wikipedia and bullying Britsish and Irish teenagers with your biasim, and why not mention Grayson's backstory since yuor so fond of "reliable" links you can go find them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdomkey2 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts Re: Chain of Memories

What the heck have you to do with this, stop stalking me on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdomkey2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even create that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.95.136 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Who do you think you are, only FantasyDragon is allowed to stalk me and edit Wikipedia as he sees fit , no you so STOP TELLING LIES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdomkey2 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Why have you gave me that message..Please slow down when your reverting or warning someone it was prob a accident but please read what my user page and talk pages says thanks.

Galorr (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Np. Take care

Galorr (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marlboro HS

Hi, please take care with your Huggle edits, you reverted mine twice, back to the same spot that I had reverted it to in the first place. -- Lucas20 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin's motto

Go on yahoo you'll see an article about the new motto. I'm only trying to be up to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.118.43 (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrong name

i am trying fix Tracy Gross which is supposed to be Tracy Grose. I tried to delete the page, but that didn't work. I tried to do a redirect, but that didn't work. And now I am being threatened to be blocked. Any help would be appreciated.

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophertopher32 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi can ypu please check the edit made from User_talk:131.111.229.18 this user was issued a warning from you as well as my self and i do believe this could be a false positive i am using huggle please let me know thanks.

Regards Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kyle1278-2. You have new messages at Staffwaterboy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comment

That was a vandal box!--Amoebaprotist (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle, I did explain my deletion. I removced an editorial published in long form and added a link. Harold Gilliam wrote a lot of editorials and i figured it was not wikipedia friendly to just cut and paste in one of them Hank Chapot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.171.135 (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was i doing wrong? The last edit made was correct, but i couldn't find a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.172.98 (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a video on youtube does this count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.172.98 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reply extremely quickly. Is this a computer or is this your job to stop things quickly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.172.98 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened about the Taz river? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.172.98 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this revert.

Harold Gilliam wrote hundreds of editorials. For someone to cut and paste one of many, probably an opponent of the Fisher Museum in the Presidio, doesn't seem to be good for a wikipedia page unless you want to cut and paste massive quantities of Gilliam's words. I think the link to said editorial was a better answer. Do you even examine changes before reverts or do you just react? Hank chapot (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC) 68.164.171.135 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NEXT, apparently, Kyle1278 is quick on the reverts but not so much on the response. Get your thing in order Hank chapot (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits...

And most of your edits have been non-constructive, just reverting me on the basis of an apparent lack of knowledge of what content is acceptable here. For example please see WP:NFC. 141.161.68.46 (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, after looking this over, I'd remind you to be a bit more careful when reverting. While a few of the prods could have gone either way~~, that is no reason to revert back to copyrighted material as you did here~~. Please remember to investigate fully, especially when an IP is likely an established user, as this one seems to be. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in reference to those, I'd like to point out that that was not unconstructive. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles. This was almost deleted before, and I've found that it's fairly conventional to prod articles after a no consensus AfD if you think views may have changed and no one will object any more. 141.161.68.46 (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, I am an established contributor as suggested, away from home right now, so I don't want to log in, but seriously man WP:DONTBITE, take a look at it. 141.161.68.46 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a no consensus AfD, I would actually say that it is always better to go back to AfD, just to make sure that consensus really has changed. Also, I don't believe that either Kyle or I meant offense. Let's just let everything be? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) It's really all cool, but I'd just like to say that I think we all know we wouldn't be having this conflict if I were signed in. People have a tendency to assume every IP is a vandal.... sad really141.161.68.46 (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Looks like someone else got to them first. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi

what's wrong with little can be known?? I think that it is very constructive, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.1.148 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About "Speedy deletion of Traditional Chinese star names in the Purple Forbidden Enclosure"

Kyle1278 さん、はじめまして。済みません。私の利用者ページの Wikipedia:Babel が "en-1", つまり "I am able to contribute with a basic level of English." なものですから、日本語で失礼します。標記 "Traditional Chinese star names in the Purple Forbidden Enclosure" の編集についてなのですが、他言語版 (foreign-language Wikipedia pages) から直接 copied and pasted したのがまずかったということでしょうか？ speedy deletion というのは、日本語版の "即時削除" に当たるみたいですね。日本語版では、要約欄に copied and pasted 元のページを明示すれば（つまり履歴の継承をしていれば）copied and pasted した後に翻訳できたかと思います。英語版ではそれもダメということでしょうか？一応、翻訳途中だったのですが（↓このような感じ）：

This is a list of the traditional Chinese star names in the Purple Forbidden Enclosure, Zǐ Wēi Yuán (紫微垣).
Names are arranged into Chnese traditonal constellations.

北極

北極一（太子）：γ UMi

北極二（帝）：β UMi

北極三（庶子）：4 UMi
庶子増一：?

庶子増二：?

庶子増三：?

北極四（后宮）：5 UMi

北極五（天枢）：32H. Cam

References

大崎正次 (1987) 「中国の星座・星名の同定一覧表」『中国の星座の歴史』雄山閣出版, pp. 293-341.

常福元 (1920) 『中西對照恒星録』中央観象台

See also

Categories of Chinese traditional uranography

zh:北天中西星名對照表#紫微垣

再編集するにはどのようにしたら良いのでしょうか？ Wikipedia:Babel "en-1" の分際で出しゃばるなということでしたら、編集は遠慮しますが。--Bay Flam 03:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

えーと、弱ったな。中国語のページを編集したもんだから中国人かと思われてしまったかな？せっかく、私の talk page で翻訳していただいたのですが、私の user page にありますように「日本語を母語としている」ので、中国語に翻訳されても、英語以上にさっぱりわかりません。誠に申し訳ないのですが、中国語ではなく日本語でお願いいたします。わがままを申し上げて済みません。--Bay Flam 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Yusuf

Please carefully review this page before reverting it without discussion. --121.44.194.116 (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

DO u like hockey? Kyle

                  Jamesran (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)jamesran[reply]

Uuhh...

Why was my silly edit reverted, but the sentence I edited remain?86.46.194.177 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Also, it actually was correct, though obviously unneccessay. He realeased a vid on youtube stating this.86.46.194.177 (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC) No. I understand that. What I don't understand is why wikipedia mentions chris at all. I'm pretty sure the original sentence was vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.194.177 (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing Chris, he may well have been the original vandal. His trolls are the ones adding Sonichu to the Jimmy Hill page. Good night sir. 86.46.194.177 (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vadalizing anything!

Just updating a page with more current info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter onhikas (talk • contribs) 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the freaking truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter onhikas (talk • contribs) 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided a number of sources using the MLA citation standards for my edits to the article "Serpentine (shape)" only to find that you've objected to the content. Please If you object to the sources I've cited provide some evidence as to why it is 'unreliable'. I highly doubt that you're familiar with the seminal works of mr.'s Kahn and Thompson. Untill you've informed yourself on the subject I object to your automatic refute of my assertions which come replete with proper academic citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.179.112 (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi, what actually is the sandbox and how does it work? I'm a newbie haha thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.159.124 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bongwarrior edit

i did not vandalize a page i simply stated a known face, which is the purpose of this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodworthguy (talk • contribs) 02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Please be more careful with your vandalism reverts such as this. You put the vandalism right back into the article. either way (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Packham's Squash

Apologies for my reversions of the prod - I misunderstood the procedure (mixing it up with speedy tags). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for blocking a user

Hi. The user 213.190.141.189 already did a vandalism in page Cobh. I was about to give his last warning, but noticed that right in that time you gave him. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

okay, now you say i have no sources ever thing else on that page dosen't have a source are racialy profiling me, cause i will report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pighair47 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)look directly above what i wrote, may i ask where their spelling, grammer, and sources came from i do not recall seeing any. would it help if i posted a picture of the newspaper?