 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lighthead. 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 main page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I'm sorry!
I'm sorry about any confusion. When it comes to reporting people, I'll wait till they've done it more than twice. Deal? Lighthead (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's all good! I hope you aren't discouraged from tracking down vandals by all this. We can definitely use all the help we can get. But since many vandals quit after they receive some warnings once they realize they're being watched, we want to make sure they're given the full four warnings (one at a time) before we block. Some extremely egregious forms of vandalism might merit an exception, such as death threats or legal threats; but these are rare exceptions. Thanks again for helping out. Regards, --causa sui (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- After when do I report them to that noticeboard? In other words what do they have to do for that to happen? Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 23:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ideally, the timeline goes like this:
- You find an editor making an edit that is incontrovertibly vandalism.
- You place a Level 1 warning on the user talk page.
- User makes more vandal edits. Level 2.
- ... and so on, until you reach 4im. When the user makes a vandal edit after the final warning, please report them to AIV. It may seem like a lot of work to follow someone around vandalizing, but keep in mind that your template warnings stay in the history, so other RCPers will know to escalate the warning levels if you don't catch every edit. Recent changes patrol is truly a team effort, which is why we like to do things "by the book" -- it ensures that the next person who responds to the vandal will be fully up to speed on the history and where we are in the process. If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask me, or post up on WT:RCP. Regards, --causa sui (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ideally, the timeline goes like this:
- After when do I report them to that noticeboard? In other words what do they have to do for that to happen? Bravo! Alfa! Papa! 23:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Zatox
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Zatox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eeekster (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Antiguo Autómata Mexicano
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Antiguo Autómata Mexicano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Calabe1992 (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Your article
It showed up on the uncategorized list, which I work with. As a note, if you don't want it to be deleted, you should try to find some sources proving that the subject is notable and therefore needs a Wikipedia article. Katharineamy (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Lighthead!
Hello Lighthead!
I'm reaching out to researchers and writers interested in the emerging, or re-emerging, movements inspired by ancient culture in the areas of religion/theology/mythology/culture...I spare-headed an artistic collaboration between a music professor, rock-vocalist and poet to create a modern multi-media experience of the cathardic journey inspired by ancient pagan poetic traditions; A romance to nature seen as a beautiful, divine and omnipotent woman.
It has singularly been my goal to respect tradition while allowing a free and spontaneous interpretation...I believe the utility of a quasi-rebirth of some aspects of the ancient religious tendancies would be achieved in an increase of tolerance, sympathy, and freedom of expression in our modern discoures on religion...so much needed. Until we have a cultural revolution tantamount to the politcal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries [aiding the rebirth of a government of, by and for the people] in the area of religion, I will not rest. Until the rebirth of religions which are of, by and for the people, as fluid as art, as deep as mythology and theology and as powerful as culture, I do not believe we will be truly free no matter what economic or political conditions surround us. Democracy without a democratic cultural is as frustrating as it is ineffectual.
If you have a moment could you peruse the poetry project site. http://www.misbeliever.net As you are a worker in these areas, having ebhanced the Wikipedia, the world's greatest encyclopedia, I would be very honored with any remarks or critisms you could offer either me or my collaborators.
thanks much,
sincerely
Pdiffenderfer (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
paul m. diffenderfer
düsseldorf germany +49 (0) 178 178 2117 http://www.misbeliever.net pdiffenderfer@yahoo.com
Tarantino
Although things like Resevoir Dogs are non-linear in their story-telling, Calling him an avant-garde filmmaker wouldn't be appropriate. I'd recommend reading more into the genre here. Tarantino and the Coens are great filmmakers, but they do not belong in the same area as filmmakers like Michael Snow, Kenneth Anger, Maya Deren, or even Harmony Korine. Non-linear story-telling doesn't immediately lump you in as an experimental or avant-garde filmmaker. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Independent and experimental are not interchangeable as not all indie film makers are experimental. Are Kevin's Smiths independent features experimental or avant-garde? Not at all! Are you thinking of the term "art film"? Cause that's an entirely different kettle of fish. We have categories for independent films (Category:Independent films) for such items. As for the deltionist comment, I've only suggested two or so articles to be deleted on Wikipedia, and those were for articles written in horrible english by non-english wikipedians or from trolls and vandals. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism , such as the edit at INTJ, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 21:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lighthead
Hi there,
I was on a mooch around after linking back from the actors and filmmakers page, and couldn't help but notice your Scratch Perry quotation- would you mind me saying you have misquoted him?
"Calling the Meek and the Humble..."
Best wishes
Cool
I'm glad you appreciate the correction- however, it's still not quite right- you want "meek", not "weak". Meekness is not weakness! And yes I will take you up on that offer of help and give you a holler at a later date, many thanks! Obsteve (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Archives of American Art Update!
Hi! I just wanted to deliver a little news about the Archives of American Art partnership project! We have released our amazing barnstar to the world, learn how you can earn one here! We will be having a Backstage Pass tour later this month which will be announced this week, and an upcoming contest in which major contributors can win some amazing goodies from the Archives and Smithsonian, allowing for international involvement! Thanks again for your interest and I look forward to your continued participation in this ongoing project to better coverage on American art history on Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Sublime
Lighthead, I wasn't actually vandalizing the Sublime article. I'm probably going to have to disagree with why you think the years active should be changed to "1988–present" instead of "1988–1996". Yes, I know this band is back together, but they're back together as Sublime with Rome not Sublime. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Problems with the page
Hi Lighthead, I feel sorry, but I had to cancel our discussion in my user space due watching from others on private. Someone unfairly reveal that link on frequently visited and highly visible wiki sites. Now that page is wholly deleted, but I have an archive outside wiki. We could continue only outside of Wikipedia through IM by some client or by E-mail. I am willing to send my email address to you, because I am not scary about spam at all, and later we talk there and even change IM contact etc. However If you not want to continue in contact, I see that. I am glad, in fact, because I´ll now be fully enjoying my wiki-break. Hopefully completely without wiki very long. If you are interested what was wrong, and actually what happened last days, you could look on my innovative User Page, much changed User Talk and related discussions on some Article Talk, other User Talk etc. If you will stay on Wikipedia, or not,- I saw also wikibreak template on your user site. Best, --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| "Excellent Reader" barnstar does not exist, so I give you "Good Humor" one. Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
Response
I am commenting here to respect FaktneviM's request at his Talk page. Your personal attacks are not warranted, and your comment about 'vampires' is bizarre. I have no intention of having a dispute with you, however neither will I sit back while you impugn my motives. There is no need for you to reply.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
:Well guess what, I am gonna respond. And he can cross out what I said all he wants; that's what I believe. Can Wikipedia control our thoughts, too? A vampire, by the way, is something that sucks the life out of something. Do the math. Lighthead þ 04:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Do "strike-out" your comments to appropriate sense, or I do it myself. No matter, if something will revert me again. You both strike.our your comments. Both! So speedy as you are able to. Or I´ll do it instead. Be sure of that. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both, guys. And please do not start sth. again --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello
I recently read your debate with User:BlackCab and I thought I'd say hello. I was curious as to what you know of the JW's. I am not here to start an argument (full disclosure, I was raised as a JW, and had regular studies with an elder, but was never baptized and am not a practicing JW), I was just curious as to what your thoughts and history with them were. Who got you interested in them? What about them made you feel they were "the truth"? How much do you know of the history of the JW's (factual, as in it happened, not things that are open to interpretation such as the "failed predictions")? I apologize if I am being forward, but I have a particular fascination with religions as someone who wants to be a religious historian, and it's rare that I get to talk to "new" JW's anymore. Just so that there is no uncertainty, I was never "disfellowshipped" nor am I in any way on bad terms with any JW. I just simply did not believe, and when I was 18 I stopped going to the meetings. I hope that this is the beginning of a lively and interesting, and especially educational, discussion, and I look forward to your response. Have a good day. Vyselink (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I actually got interested in them through my mom. I hope you have time. I'll try to cut it short. I was having anxiety attacks, and my mom asked a co-worker (who is a Jeh. Wit.) for advice. The co-worker told her that I might need someone to talk to. So someone came to my house; and I was skeptical at first, but eventually it just clicked. I was just like, "This is what I've been searching for all my life." I was previously involved in the occult, and I had convinced myself that the truth was relative; but at the same time I had a nagging concern that there was something more. And I felt like I found it when I came to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't know too much of the actual history of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I have become very familiar with what they believe in about a year. They say that I've advanced quite a deal, that could also have to do with me being very smart (My dad is smart; I possibly inherited it from him. We are very similar in our mental attitudes.) Well I hope that answers your questions! If you need anything, please let me know. Thanks.
I moved your response here, as I think it would be easier to keep the discussion to one thread. May I ask what you mean by "occult"? I have learned that JW's use that as a blanket term. Although of course feel free to not answer as you choose, as I said, as a (hopeful) future religious historian, I find this topic fascinating, but I have no desire to make you uncomfortable. May I ask what skepticism you had at the beginning? I myself have skepticism about all religions, but I have found that they differ between them, that there are very few common threads that I find, let's say "interesting", in the religions that I have studied, including JW's. I'm also very curious about what previous Biblical knowledge/study you acrued before JW. I have found that surprisingly few JW's, of the ones that I have met/talked to of course, so even I take my experiences with a grain of salt or three, have had any real, I don't want to say "training", but any real in depth look at other religions or even the Bible itself. Again, I hope I am not being rude, as I do not wish to be, I am merely blessed with an insatiable curiosity. Vyselink (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I actually was gonna ask you if you wanted it here; I guess I forgot. When I mean the occult, I, to a great extent, dabbled in astrology. I also dabbled in magic as a sort of power of the mind thing. I felt that magical training was just a training of the mind to believe that anything was possible. I still feel that anything is possible, but under God's direction. When I say skeptical even though I wasn't a die hard Christian, I had the idea that the trinity was the correct view. I couldn't at first be less than skeptical about the idea that Christ wasn't God. I rather liked the interpretation that Christ is an angel; I liked angels. As to previous knowledge of the Bible, I had read a good deal before; but never a systematic study as I do now with the JW's. That's why I'm surprised that you said that most of the JW's you encountered had little knowledge of the Bible. The ones that I've encountered have at least an intermediate level of Bible understanding. Lighthead þ 23:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
What is meant by "intermediate"? Intermediate, as you obviously know, means "occurring between two extremes, or in the middle of a range". but that again is kind of open to interpretation. The extremes would be "never having cracked the Bible" to "being able to quote extensively citing chapter and verse as well as book". Anything in between that could be considered intermediate. What I meant by "no real in-depth" knowledge of the Bible was that they were able to say, with apparent assurance, what the Bible says, but that information came from what they had been TOLD it said, not what they themselves have studied. I have probably studied the Bible more in-depth than mostly everyone I know (and have studied more versions of the Bible than anyone I know without a doubt, including the New International Version, the King James, the New King James, The Jerusalem Bible, the New World Translation [JW's version], and a couple others). When I asked who said "Do not think that I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man's enemies will be persons of his own household" (Matthew 10:34-36 in the New World Translation) none of them would believe that it was Christ, because all they had been taught was that Christ is the "Prince of Peace" to use a common term. Admittedly, that is a rather obscure reference, and I can't fault them for not knowing it, but being unable to even think that that was something that Christ said, when there are many verses in the Bible where we know he preaches eventual violence (Luke 3:9 ["trees" here are humans]; Luke 10:10-15 [general warning that anyone who does not follow him are doomed to a fate worse than Sodom]; Mark 8:38, Revelations 19:11-16 and others but you get the point) is something I found hard to believe. Another, less obscure, example: most people could tell me that the Bible was inspired by God, but could not quote, accurately paraphrase (other than to say "the Bible was inspired by God"), or even name a book in the Bible where this is stated (2nd Peter 1:20-21 or 2nd Timothy 3:16 come to mind). To me, claiming to have knowledge of something and teaching that "knowledge" to others (please note the bold, as you can claim to have knowledge all you want, when it becomes a problem is when you decide to teach that knowledge to others as fact), without being able to accurately identify at least the main sections of where that "knowledge" comes from, is lacking in-depth knowledge of the source material, and that is what I meant by my statement.
On a less preachy note (lol, I realize how what I wrote above must sound) how are you doing? Are you close to baptism (or have you already been baptized?) Vyselink (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Your message is quite lengthy so I may not respond to it until Monday (especially in light of the fact that I usually take a break from the computer on weekends). And when I do respond I'll send you an email via Wikipedia's email function. Wikipedia tends to discourage personal messaging on talk pages. I'll leave a you've got mail template on your talk page after I send you that message. Okay? You'll hear from me soon. Thanks. Lighthead þ 03:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Re Display title
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<small>User:</small><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif; color:#CC0000; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">Σ</span>}} --Σ talkcontribs 22:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hardstyle
Dear Lighthead, I've just read your message on reverting back the article on Hardstyle because of unverifiable resources. I'm fine with deleting these resources and the extra information I've added to article. However, my rearranging of text to make it easier to read, has nothing to do with this. I changed the history so it's less chaos, how can this be wrong?
Second of all: Yes, I didn't have the best references in the world. But the article as it is now hasn't got any sources at all. I think the current article is biased towards nowadays hardstyle. The text I wrote kept personal opinions aside and was more objective. It said there is a distinction between early hardstyle and nustyle. It also said there is much controversy about these terms. It said some people recognize raw hardstyle and dubstyle as sub-genres, as well as it said that are many similarities.
I know I didn't wrote the perfect article. I just wanted it to make it a bit more objective and easier to read. I hope you'll reconsider it changing back to my latest version so someone actually can make it a perfect article.
Best Regards, Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.74.239 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Red Link Recovery
Hello. As a Portugese-speaking WikiGnome, I'd like to solicit your help in testing a new tool. For a few years now, the Red Link Recovery Project has been using the Red Link Recovery Live tool to track down and fix unnecessarily red links in articles. Recently, the tool has been expanded to work on non-English Wikipedias. A small set of suggested fixes for red-links on the Portugese-language Wikipedia have been prepared and I'm hoping to interest some Portugese-language speakers (such as yourself) to work through them.
If you are interested, please visit http://toolserver.org/~tb/RLRL/quick.php?lang=pt. Each time you refresh the page you'll be presented with three new suggested fixes. I'll be happy to answer any questions on the tools talk page. - TB (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Joan Miró and Qrpedia
Hello! I've seen that are you are a member of the Wikiproject: Visual Arts and I would like to ask you for some help. The Wikipedia in Catalan have reached an agreement with the Joan Miró Foundation: They will include QRpedia codes next to the highlights of his upcoming exhibition about Joan Miró. It's the most important exhibit in the last 20 years, and has passed summer at Tate in London, this autumn will be in Barcelona, and then will go to NGA in Washington. The articles have been made in Catalan and are being translated into English, and I would like you to help us whether monitoring the translation, translating articles or expanding or translating them to other languages. The more languages we have, the better the experience for the user. You can find more information about the Wikiproject here. Thank you in advance!.--Kippelboy (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
LA-area Meetup: Saturday, November 19
|
National Archives Backstage Pass at the Reagan Library | 
|
| You are invited to the first-ever backstage pass tour and Wikipedia editathon hosted by the Reagan Presidential Library, in Simi Valley, on Saturday, November 19th! The Reagan Library, home to a real Air Force One and other treasures from American history, will take Wikipedians on a special tour of the grounds and archives, followed by an editathon; free catered lunch provided. Please sign up! Dominic·t 21:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Meetup/LA/Invite. |
WP:Astrology project would like your views on what constitutes appropriate content and sources for astrology-related content
Hi, this is to let you know that there is an important discussion taking place in the WP:Astrology project, which affects the guidelines for content and sources on astrology-related pages. This requires input from its members. It would be very much appreciated if you could leave a comment/express your views on the issues raised.
The link to the discussion is here.
Hope you can find time to add a few thoughts
Sorry
Sorry about my name appearing in your history... I tried to copy your really cool title style in my page but I didn't realize that I was actually editing yours. Once again, I'm very sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tboii99 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool
Glad you forgave me. I actually learned a lot of stuff about creating stuff from the work that you did. As a matter of fact, how do you make a colored signature like that? (As you can you see I'm kind of a newbie.) By the way, I see that you put your title in italics.
(talk) 01:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks a lot, it really means a lot to me. The Wikipedia explanations to me personally are long, confusing, and don't help me much either, which is why I need another source. If you can't find what you were looking for, it's totally understandable to lose something in your history, especially because you have a lot of edits.
(talk) 01:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ooooooooooooooooooooohhh..... that's great. Thanks, for the links and other stuff, it's all going to help.
User:Tboii99 (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I did it! But I feel pretty stupid because I spent like an hour trying to figure out why my text won't show as my code, when I didn't realize that I just had to press the Wiki Markup button. Anyway, here it is.... Tboii99 01:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad you like it. Anyway, although you probably sent me the wrong info, it still gave me an idea of how to format the text, which still helped. Thanks again for all your help! Tboii99 18:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm glad you like it. Anyway, although you probably sent me the wrong info, it still gave me an idea of how to format the text, which still helped. Thanks again for all your help! Tboii99 18:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Science lovers wanted!
| Science lovers wanted! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hey
Hey, just stopping by to say hello. You should check out my talk and user pages, I actually had a lot done. I even started an article, but I'm not done with it. Once again, hello! Tboii99 ✉ 16:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! It actually took me a while to do all of it, and I had to annoy a couple of editors (Including you if you think about it)... but it's finally the way I want it to look. Tboii99 ✉ 22:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, the page notice for the talk page was something I stole from User:Σ's talk page. Tboii99 ✉ 22:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't know that, and I'm sure he/she gets bothered by everyone... the only reason I ever went to his/her page is because the username stuck out. Tboii99 ✉ 23:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what actually happened. Although when I asked you I was talking about the signature, not the title, I was looking for the perfect title too, a few minutes before that. That's why I accidentally altered the title on your page. (Sometimes I just do things mindlessly; full of stupidity) Nonetheless, I figured out both... with your help, of course. Tboii99 ✉ 23:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cool, I am glad that cleared things up. Anyway, I was about to tell you that there are so many complicated rules of Wikipedia that I didn't even know of... sometimes when someone points something out with some complicated rule I've never heard of I feel like an idiot. I guess I'm still learning :( Tboii99 ✉ 00:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's exactly how I feel!! I know how to spot the rules, but I don't go nuts on learning them. Obviously, I know the basics and hopefully a lot of the intermediate stuff, but still, there are thousands of rules here. Some of these rules are minor, and some of them are major. Either way, I don't really stress out over them, but I do follow them whenever I stumble upon one. Like sometimes I do new page patrol, and I hardly know the deletion criteria. Usually I just look at each article, then look at the deletion policy, I check over the criteria and then I check if the article complies with any of them (Which still gets the job done the same way). It's not like I don't care about Wikipedia.. if I didn't I would have much more fun vandalizing than editing... and I wouldn't have looked at the deletion criteria whatsoever. It's just that I do whatever I can, whatever I feel comfortable doing. When I first started, I went ballistic on editing, but now the more I learn, the more I slow down. Tboii99 ✉ 22:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Cool, I am glad that cleared things up. Anyway, I was about to tell you that there are so many complicated rules of Wikipedia that I didn't even know of... sometimes when someone points something out with some complicated rule I've never heard of I feel like an idiot. I guess I'm still learning :( Tboii99 ✉ 00:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what actually happened. Although when I asked you I was talking about the signature, not the title, I was looking for the perfect title too, a few minutes before that. That's why I accidentally altered the title on your page. (Sometimes I just do things mindlessly; full of stupidity) Nonetheless, I figured out both... with your help, of course. Tboii99 ✉ 23:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't know that, and I'm sure he/she gets bothered by everyone... the only reason I ever went to his/her page is because the username stuck out. Tboii99 ✉ 23:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, the page notice for the talk page was something I stole from User:Σ's talk page. Tboii99 ✉ 22:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I just read your essay, What I hate about Wikipedia, and I agree with almost every bit of it. (It's not that I disagree with the tiny other parts, it's just that I haven't experienced some of the things you mentioned yet, so I don't agree nor disagree). You were right about it all, the people, the I.P. users, and the skins. And I thought I was the only one who felt the skins are ugly. Tboii99 ✉ 22:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I just read what you wrote, and yeah, I know I should be doing that... I try my best to do so, like I said. :) Tboii99 ✉ 22:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
God, thanks! I'm actually really new to the discussion sections on Wikipedia so I have to learn a lot. i'm not pretty sure of using this feature a lot but still it's good to know some things. Thank you =) —Gheiratina (Touch~^) 02:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I try to be nice to everyone most of the time. Well thanks again for the compliment! But my sign is still not as good as yours. —Gheiratina (Touch~^) 02:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Haha, you're funny =). Well, I have to say good bye, here it's time to go to bed and i have to be awake early. Have a nice day and thanks for everything. Hope to read you soon! —Gheiratina (Touch~^) 02:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Lighthead, glad to talk with you. I noticed that you cancelled my changes (the singles chart positions in Poland) to the article Tears For Fears, though i provided reliable sources; i would like to add this information to this article. And if i have the sources, i think there is no problem :) (Sorry for my english, i'm not from an anglophone country ;)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.149.82.241 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry if it was unclear - Cheers! Theopolisme 22:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding IMCS edit
I removed the line from IMCS page:
The Institute for Media Management and Communication Studies, a reputed media institute in New Delhi is a study centre of the Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism
because it was written like an advertisement.
Secondly the institution is not reputed enough to be mentioned in Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.148.184 (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome from STiki!
|
Hello, Lighthead, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
Patience is a virtue
In case there is any doubt, I will soon go to sleep. After that, I will go to work. During that time, I will not respond at Wikipedia. This should not be construed as any indication of how important or unimportant I consider any comments you might care to make. Thank you.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Edits to CA Tripp
I'm sorry you didn't like my edits to Clarence Tripp's page, but I will be adding them back because they reduced the use of unsupported politically sensitive adjectives ("Conservative") with objective and informative ones ("New York Times biographer") and added information. 24.21.101.252 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Reviewer
Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:
- Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
- Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
- Administrate article feedback.
Please remember that this user right:
- Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
- Does not grant you any special status above other editors.
- You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)