User talk:The Mark of the Beast

Please post below this line:

For the Nandi Award for Best Actor page I was making the table sortable and was about to include the references. It is much easier to refer the data if it is sortable. Hope you don't mind the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishareinfo (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the page :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_%28techfest%29 tedxbitsgoa is no longer a part of Quark 2012. So removed it under Special Category Events Kushal124 (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your edits on Curt Mega's page. The first was was correct. However stating he was NOT the lead is several productions when they are clearly marked on his official resume is incorrect. I am putting those items back on the page. Please refrain from making other changes as this page was proofed by Curt himselftalk

I apologize for early not understanding that a resume or IMDB were not considered reli+able sources. I have been sourcing news source instead. I pray you will be patient with me as I figure this out. I am not trying to be rude and annoying. Mozartchic01 (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)mozartchic01[reply]

I edited it to show the actual word to word quote that he posted to pastebin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan nV (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recent revert in Comodo Group

Hello.

May I remind you that supplying an edit summary for every revert is mandatory? Yes, I believe your revert was a valid one but that would not be good pretext for not supplying an edit summary. Please be careful in the future. Thanks.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was surely not vandalism. It was a bona fide attempt to contribute something, though the result was awful. Your edit summary should have read: "Low quality contribution that lacks coherence. Also has no [[WP:V|source]] and violates [[WP:DUE]]."

I must say I have personally seen very little instances in which someone added something to the article that was indeed vandalism, i.e an attempt to ruin the article. Yes, test edits, self-promotion, COI, fanaticism and much more, but none are vandalism. The only instances of vandalism that I have seen that was done by adding material was insertion of offensive words or random characters. You can read more in Wikipedia:Not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choker(film)

Good work in catching that blatant copvio from the two-edit author. I invite you back to the AFD and the article, as my google-foo is in high gear. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Snjflame/Ahna O'Reilly

Why are you prodding this? It is not in mainspace yet, it is a work in progress in a user space. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that BLP applies to user pages, but that page is not in violation of BLP. WP:BLP requires that controversial BLP content is always referenced on user pages. Non-controversial stuff on a draft is okay. The main motivation of the BLP policy is to prevent Wikipedia from being sued for libel. --Surturz (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War 2007 Film

Do you have time to watch War 2007 Film (Sean Archer123 (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Damian Elwes

We are dealing with a new but persistent editor. I hope they start reading the talk page comments and the edit summaries. Thanks for your good work. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Face/Off 1997 Film

Have you seen the movie called Face/Off?(99.88.78.94 (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Message for The Mark of the Beast

Have you seen the 2007 movie called War? Do you remember watching the movie called War? YES OR NO.(Sean Archer123 (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

CSD A7 on Eskabo Daan

Hi, I Wanted to let you know that I challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Eskabo Daan. In my opinion the article makes a sufficient claim of notability to survive deletion under criteria A7. Both because of the media coverage it claims it has gotten, and a link in the external links section that I have now converted to a reference. It is not really clear to me whether the subject meets the notability guidelines, so if you would like to start an AfD I wont object. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Generico

How hard is it to check the reference? ROH updated their site and, in the process, also his weight. It's not hard to verify, just click on the damn link.TheFBH (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: The Boyfriends (Filipino band)

Hello The Mark of the Beast. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Boyfriends (Filipino band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Signed to a label notable enough for it's own article is sufficient for A7. Take to AfD if required. Thank you. Ged UK 10:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re. ESL (investment company)

My edits were not vandalism. ESL is a fraud and not a legitimate company. A quick search on google will reveal this scam. This "company" is using Wikipedia to perpetuate this fraud. If you don't like the quality of my edit, can you at least delete this article as Wikipedia is being used in this scam.

Please have a look at this site http://www.qohel.com/2011/03/02/jbc-global-and-cfs-live-stock-share-trading-scams/ for reference (search for esl on the page).

Thank you.

Forebitter (band)

I just restored the legitimate reference to Journal of American Folklore that you inexplicably removed seconds after the Wikipedia article was created. Please go to a library and get access to a ProQuest account. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all reference sources are online sources. A reference to a notable journal Journal of American Folklore is a good reference whether or not it is available online to you or to anyone. Hard copy books and journals are heavily used in Wikipedia, in the more scholarly areas beyond the popular zones of bands and sports. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ESL references not reliable

Ok, I agree I need to find reliable sources before I post my claims on the ESL article. However ALL of the current references on the article are not reliable either!

For example 'eShares Magazine' does not exist! It's not a real publication, it does not exist nor has it ever exited!!! It's the same story with all of the other references. You can verify this yourself. In such case I ask that this article be deleted since it has no reliable sources to back any of it's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.239.233 (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for clearing the nastiness from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of St thomas convent school

Hi Beast,

I've declined the speedy deletion tag you placed on St thomas convent school; according to the article it is a high school (as well as a primary school), and per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education, high schools tend to be accorded notability by default. There is, therefore, a claim of notability in the article, so WP:A7 doesn't apply. The page author has blanked the page (I'm not sure whether he intended to or not), so it's been re-tagged for speedy deletion under WP:G7. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 07:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi The Mark of the Beast,

I noticed you replied to some feedback from the new Feedback Dashboard feature – you might be interested in the task force Steven Walling and I just created for this purpose: Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Thanks for diving in on your own and helping the newbies, and I hope you'll sign up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jennifer Lopez songs

But of course, that's what Wikipedia requires, is it not? There are 196 more articles like this one. I'm just not done yet. xD It takes a lot of time. — Status {^talk_contribs 06:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wan Ling Tea House

Not sure if I am writing this in the right place.

Apologies for deleting the general page I created which duplicated my user page content. I haven't written a page before and thought I was updating my user page not creating a new one.

Sorry for the extra work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanlingeahouse (talk • contribs) 03:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.D.Farmer and Sons

If it is re-directed to the category then it is LISTED in the category even if no one has gotten around to writing an article about it yet. The category thus serves as a listing of foundries as, I think, it should. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 05:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hableet

Hello The Mark of the Beast. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know however, regarding Hableet, that tagging articles for speedy deletion moments after creation as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3) and articles created through the Article Wizard, is too fast. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), pure vandalism (G3), and copyright violations (G12) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry, it's not gonna happen"? It's advised to wait for 10 minutes before tagging A1 and A3 as it avoids WP:BITE. If you choose not to wait, that's still okay, but remember that it will be very unfriendly to newcomers. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shakin' Stevens

I have replied to you on my talk page. Cheers --Krótki (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New-adult fiction

Hi, I'm building the article just now and am about to add much more content with sources. It's a new category that has been introduced this year. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, will do. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Let me know what you think when it's done. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've polished New-adult fiction a bit and was wondering if it would be appropriate to put up on the DYK. I've never done a DYK but I was thinking it might be a good hook with new category in young-adult fiction. What do you think? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. That's easy to find. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You said I had not provided a reason in my edit summary, but indeed I had. This content is taking up over half the article, and while relevant, may be receiving undue weight --71.156.81.178 (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CopyVio on User page in the same wikipedia

Hello Mister, I'm treating to find a problem on 2011-12 Copa del Rey article, I can't edit 40 times there until i'll find the problem, what is the problem to do testing in my user page to not make wrong a correct article???? Greatings

Reg. edit of Daniel Wegner's page

Hi. As any search on "emily pronin daniel wegner microblogging" will show, the link between this study ("Psychological Effects of Thought Acceleration") by Wegner and Pronin and the popularity of microblogging has been proposed since quite a while, and widely referenced. I see no reason at all to treat the inclusion of both the cited links as 'spam'. Emily Pronin was herself aware of this potential link in 2009 and has at no time objected to the possibility of a connection. Thanks and regards, Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygilloz (talk • contribs) 06:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Tonygilloz (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reg. my alleged 'spamming'

Hi again The Mark of the Beast. I understand your take on the definition article on 'Sentimentitis' and have added it to Wiktionary instead. I have no objection to its deletion at all, and am in agreement with you. However, as for your note that I am 'spamming' the other articles: the link cited is from an article in a leading media company's website, written by an expert in the field, and refers to the issues/terms/personalities that have been referenced. Kindly let me know in some more detail the nature of your objection to help me understand your perception that I am 'spamming'. I am an experienced professional writer, but a Wikipedia tyro. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygilloz (talk • contribs) 06:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Tonygilloz (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be expected to respond to my two submissions above?!?!

Hi again The Mark of the Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygilloz (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Tonygilloz (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That, MOTB, is a threat, not a response. To reiterate: Can you be expected to respond to my two submissions above? Tonygilloz (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama articles

I wasn't aware of the one-revert policy. Perhaps this should be discussed in mediation? The race he is portrayed as is highly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution It seems you are not trying to resolve this dispute in a civil manner, but are threatening blocks in order to promote your point of view. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Barack Obama and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I just misclicked and blocked you in error. I just want to apologise, I'm sorry! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Going To California (Talay Riley Mixtape)

Hi Mark of the Beast. This does not meet criteria for speedy deletion under A9, as Talay Riley exists as an article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Chinese New Zealander, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Wong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Florez Image

Usage of this image was granted to me by the owner. Please stop removing it. It appears that you have a tendency to edit first, ask questions later. Again, please stop removing this image. I have been granted permission to upload and use this image for this article. Thank you. Messwein (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were the one image moderator to rule them all! Talk about self-righteous. And how do you know who owns the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messwein (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are acting elitist. People like you make Wikipedia a very unpleasant experience. The image is provided by the California State Senate, which is a government organization. I don't know what kind of evidence I need to give you for that. I specifically requested the picture from them in an e-mail. Dean Florez's website has a photo gallery with pictures for media use, would that be acceptable to you your majesty? Messwein (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments before replying. The image was sent to me via e-mail by a staffer at the California State Senate. Unfortunately I seem unable to upload any images other than "I own this work" images at the moment. It could be because I had to create a new account. I am familiar with copyright law, thank you. The image was provided by a government agency for public and media use. It doesn't get more free-license than that. Messwein (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to keep on about this subject, will you AT LEAST explain what kind of proof would be acceptable to you that this was provided to me by a government agency? Since Dean Florez is retired, he no longer retains a website on the Senate Website. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messwein (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: The Hillview

Hello~ I am not trying to undermine you, however I have been maintaining the accuracy of this page. The vandal is a representative of the new owners of this historic property and they are attempting to remove all negative associations which are referenced multiple times. Any assitance you can offer would be most appreciated.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by James mojo (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Happy new year and we will see you contributing in 2012 of the new year. We are hoping to see and help to make Wikipedia better! Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 22:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bechdel

Yes, the Bechdel test was what I was thinking of. Thank you! Dismas|^(talk) 03:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you know if it's besh-dell or bek-dell? Or maybe bek-duhl? Dismas|^(talk) 02:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Kirchick

In terms of James Kirchick, we're either dealing with a prolific sock-puppeteer or an extensive meat-puppetry event started somewhere off-wiki. I'm more inclined to believe the latter, but the former is also a possibility. You think we should go for protection? Silverseren^C 11:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, The Mark of the Beast. You have new messages at DoriSmith's talk page.
Message added 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks

Based on its current state, it's pretty clear that 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks needs some serious work. I've started a discussion about how to go forward at Talk:2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks#One cleanup possibility, and you're invited to participate. Thanks in advance, Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of request for arbitration on behalf of filing party

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Barack Obama and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

On behalf of the filing party, --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuno Pinto - Reply

Hi there MARK, VASCO from Portugal here,

yes i know, very "uncalled for" summary. It's just i am so frustrated at the state Portuguese football (don't know if that or just football is a subject of your interest) is in. Portuguese players play ABSOLUTELY NO PART in their own country, having to move abroad, i don't know of any other country in THE WORLD in which this happens.

All in all, i again apologize for any inconvenience, even though i was more hysterical than insulting i think. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of deletion discussion: THE BEST NBA PLAYERS 2011-12

Hello, you redirected THE BEST NBA PLAYERS 2011-12 to List of players in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. I have nominated that redirect page for deletion, as I do not consider it to be a plausible redirect. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 13 if you wish to express an opinion one way or the other on whether the redirect should be deleted. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Mark of the Beast. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Weird Woman warning

Hi I am a regular Wikpedia user. I'm afraid I don't understand your objection to the information I included on this page. Could you explain more fully? Thankyou
— User:110.33.115.194 23:55, 17 January 2012

That was added to my talk page, probably by mistake. You may wish to reply to the user. →Σ τ c. 00:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Champa

I am afraid I dont know which came first. I am just trying to clear up the split tag backlog and if an article obviously needs splitting then I go ahead and do it. I have to assume the existing article is ok. This is not the first time I have split an apparantly dormant article and been immediately challenged. It is becoming quite a common problem an indicates a problem with the process, I wish I knew what to suggest. One of the sure ways of determining would be to look at the history and if the section was built in stages by different people then it would seem Wikipedia came first and the other site copied it. If that is the case then the other site ought to be taken to task for not attributing properly. On the other hand, if it was in 1 section then that would suggest a possible rip off by Wikipedia and needs to be sorted. I dont have time to look now, but I will try and look in the next few daysOp47 (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had realised you weren't blaming me, sorry if I gave that immpression Op47 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Survivor: One World

Re your message: I am not waving our hands and saying "there's a source out there somewhere". I do not appreciate your insinuation that this stuff is made up or helping make this stuff up. If you actually looked at the CBS website, you will see that the cast list is clearly available. And if you looked at the other two references listed on the article, you will see that the full cast list is available. If you look at my editing history on any of the Survivor articles, you will see that I have always removed unsourced information. Please look before tagging articles. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Because the information is not particularly contentious. You are the first and only person I recall ever contesting the information after the public release of the cast list. Feel free to bring it up on the talk page if you insist on feeling that the cast list must be cited. Are you seriously saying that you believe the list is false? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: That's fine. Feel free to go get one. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judi Shekoni

Thanks. I raised this article at WP:BLPN yesterday am, perhaps you noticed that. The account that's been restoring this material tried again after I told xhe it was at BLPN, so your eyes on this are appreciated. Another Admin has pointed out that if that editor restores it again the editor is blockable. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats your problem?

I have stated all facts on Nandamuri Balakrishna's page and quoted legitimate references from the Hindu which is one of the most accurate news paper out there. And my Edit was complete neutral not at all biased or controversial. Please read my references again if u have too. U will know what i am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asda59 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens to the other lines were i have quoted references? You are objecting to one line. their were 5,6 lines in the article all of them had accurate references. Why delete the whole section? Delete the one line if it doesn't have references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asda59 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Mark of the Beast. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wally Lamb article dispute

Hello,

I am trying to resolve the dispute regarding the Wally Lamb article. I have added inline citations throughout as well as a reference section. I have also posted on the Talk page announcing these revisions and requesting that the warnings be removed (Jan. 26th, 2012). As I am unsure how to proceed at this point, I have also posted to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to seek further guidance ( {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Wally Lamb}} --~~~~ ). I assure you, my goal in editing the Wally Lamb article is to create a neutral, accurate, and up-to-date article. Any codes violations were due to my lack of experience not malicious or promotional intent. I hope that we can resolve this dispute and remove the warnings. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Amanda

Regarding your most recent post on the Wally Lamb Talk page

I am trying my best to be civil, treat this as a learning experience, and get this situation resolved. I realize that you don't know me and have every right to interrogate what I've posted, but I'm finding it hard not to take this personally at this point. I explicitly did not remove the neutrality tag because I do not feel it is my place to do so; however I do feel it should be re-evaluated at this point. Though your most recent note suggests some deceit on my part, I have been completely up-front and honest about my connection with the subject. I wonder if all Wikipedia editors are so forthcoming. I have noted this connection several times in several different places--there is nothing sneaky going on here that someone had to ferret out; I am simply trying to contribute something useful to Wikipedia. And I've appealed to your expertise in helping me to ensure that it is useful and well-supported (again, I thank you for that). Yes, the subject asked me to update the page and correct errors in the original article (which, though I didn't know at the time, I know now is in compliance with Wikipedia:BLP standards). All corrections, updates, and additions come from referenced print and online texts. I have been over and over this article, and there is not one shred of anything biased or promotional to be found here so I can only conclude that your continued issue with the page and your refusal to remove the tag does not have to do with the content therein. Therefore, I am at a complete loss at how to address your concerns. Should I take this to mean that no one can write anything about a subject that they happen to know regardless of how neutral and supported the article may be? Do I try to revert the page to the original incomplete and inaccurate but neutral (as far as we know) version? Honestly, what does a person in my position do at this point to set things right? I will continue to make good faith efforts to improve the page and welcome your advice. Amandatindersmith (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have removed the COI tag as it appears that Amandatindersmith has made evry effort to follow wikipedia policy. Civility policies suggest that you should engage with editors rather than just tagging articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi i have created a title "testing for engineering safety"... with a small mistake.. "testing for safety"

all the things are right.. except the missing word "engineering" .. so is there a way to change its title to "testing for engineering safety".. i undid your work in order to copy my contents to hard disk .. u can undo it once more.. but paste the old contents under this heading: "testing for engineering safety" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob plus (talk • contribs) 09:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lords Of Aesir Speedy Delete

The page creator is now IP hopping and making supporting comments on the talk page in an effort to create a false sense of consensus to keep the article. I advised to reference WP:NOTE and WP:GARAGEBAND.Andrew Kurish (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, The Mark of the Beast. You have new messages at Petrb's talk page.
Message added 12:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

mabdul 12:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Nandi Award for Best Actor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Santosham and Jeevana Jyothi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the Siri

Hi The Mark of the Beast. I would like to ask because I don't know why you keep deleting the one that I added for the article, Siri(software) about "Vangie". I just want to ask if I made a spam and why do you keep deleting it? Thanks a lot!