User talk:Lofty abyss/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Typos

Hey thanks for fixing the typos on my userpage :) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :-) -- Mentifisto 17:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for the warm welcome. I hope I can be of some help --Dougofborg (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Paperwork!

Thanks! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about the etiquette on creating a disambiguation page

The word Geocentric goes to a redirect page to the entry for "Geocentric model". There is another definition of Geocentric. I would like to make a disambiguation page which would point to a new page on Geocentric coordinate systems as used in mapping and GPS technology.

I posted a comment to the Geocentric model discussion page (in case anyone is watching it) to see if there needs to be some kind of vote or something. What is the etiquette for this? Is it good form to just take over the redirect page, turn it into a disambiguation page and move on?

I'm not going to edit the existing Geocentric model page...

Thanks in advance Jlhollin (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

UBX/Science

Hi, Mentifesto. The word "science" in the userbox is sentence-capitalised purely because I think it looks nice. Uncompelling, yes, but I wasn't aiming for grammatical accuracy when I made it – if I were, I'd use a full stop at the end. I'd prefer to keep the userbox as it is. You're more than welcome to make a userbox of your own if you'd like: more science userboxes are better than fewer. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Veterans Rowers Association

hello mentifisto I am new on wikipedia. I was adding some sources as you asked. I hope it is OK now. I have a discussion page on that name as well. Don't know the guidelines very well.. ~~Vingerhoet~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vingerhoet (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

VideoAge International page

Hi. I'm making a page about a business and it keeps getting reverted back to it's original version that's quite dreadful by a bot or occasionally you. The original is terrible, but there's another version in the archives that's a great many times better. If you could insure that this second version stays (I hope you agree that it's better) that would be great, as I'm new to Wikipedia and not the greatest editor. A few edits were changes because a YouTube link was posted, but I can assure you it was not spam but rather a link to the business' youtube chanel. Again I really hope you can help.

~~Serafiny~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serafiny (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for catching my typo. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your prompt reply bm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardmon (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Pages blanked by author

Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because quite often the author has blanked his own page, as was the case with Ben boylett just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually they blank it to also blank the db tag though, so that's why I thought it's not usually necessary just to re-tag it. -- Mentifisto 19:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You did something similar, just now, at Holly Springs Baptist Church (Pickens, SC). Please, "Assume Good faith"! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I didn't check its previous revisions. -- Mentifisto 00:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		On behalf of all the vandalized pages you have reverted, thank you and keep up the good work. South Bay (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) -- Mentifisto 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't revert my non-vandalism edits as vandalism

Please be more careful when reverting.

Yeah, well, this isn't grammar so the wording isn't careful. It's dubious nevertheless. -- Mentifisto 02:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and advice

Hi

Thanks for the help - I told the other party they were "a bit naughty", the user has apologised and I have accepted so hopefully we will be able to carry on the discussions without that sort of thing happening again.

Thanks for the link to refactoring, it may be of bebefit in the next day or two when we have to cut the page size down with archiving - I will probably push for a FAQ discussion and summary

cheers once again and I will delete the help req tag. --Chaosdruid (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) PS - nice pic at the top

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanking you for helping me with vandalism reverts using Huggle. -download | sign! 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - you're doing well, too. -- Mentifisto 23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. :-) -- Mentifisto 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

wat?

i dont speaky engrish plz to be telling me wat wrong

I think you know well enough what inserting 'fagcore' means. -- Mentifisto 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your AIV report on Afrost24

Thank you for your report on Afrost24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have however declined to block for the following reason:

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. See his latest edit summary.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for that, but he didn't use summaries when I saw the diffs and actually I reported him because J.delanoy had already issued a final warning. -- Mentifisto 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was edited due to a number of inaccuracies including the fact that the actual legal name is Kiwi International Airlines. Kiwi Travel international Airlines was changed in 1995 to Kiwi International Airlines. The number of convictions asserted by the original authors is wrong. Wilson was convicted on 4 charges of misuse of a document. The comments regarding the security commission cannot be found in the Securities Commission report. (122.57.95.183 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Billings

Of course it's vandalism, so thanks for reverting the changes to Billings, but I have to say that I find quite funny the idea that "Billings is rapidly staying the same" within the UAE's province of Guam. Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the 600 millionth out of mere hundreds... ;-) -- Mentifisto 04:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Userpage revert

Thanks for that. I think we've got nothing more than a persistent linkspammer here. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 05:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert request

The Utah Grizzlies page has been vandalized, can you please revert it. Thanks. Raul17 (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again! Raul17 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it since you say it's vandalism (I don't know about the topic so all I knew was that they reduced the page size considerably) although as an editor you could have done it as well by editing the correct revision and saving it (or undo if it's 1 edit). :-) -- Mentifisto 13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have reverted, but it was already on the second edit and I do not think I would have been able to rewrite all that info again! :D Thanks again! Raul17 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you could go here just before the IP's edits, 'edit' ClueBot's revision and save it... it's automated so you don't have to rewrite everything again. -- Mentifisto 13:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Food chemistry revert

Thanks for the revert on the Food chemistry. I really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No prob. -- Mentifisto 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

SNC Lavalin Scandal

I would like to inform you that the edits that were done in the subject matter was because the earlier matter was a copy-paste of a press release by the SNC-Lavalin company. I was trying to brief the contents and gave reference to the actual matter. Coul dyou please explain what the error was? I guess Wikipedia does not support copy pasting from any other website !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.181.131.73 (talk • contribs)

Sorry for the hassle; I didn't see the edit summaries because they were greyed out (put between /* */). It's reverted. -- Mentifisto 14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks a bunch!

Thanks for reverting my talk page vandalism! Here's a barnstar to show my gratitude. :] miquonranger03 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For helping to defend my talk page against those who wish it harm. miquonranger03 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) -- Mentifisto 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I was on the verge of giving you that same reward, MF, given how you've beaten me to vandalism multiple times today. →Dyl@n620 17:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism help

Hi, I know you are active in fighting vandalism. Could you please check out the Birds Hill Provincial Park wiki. I an new to vandalism fighting and do not know how to handle this situation. Thanks Frosted14 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If they do it again and after a final warning report them to WP:AIV. -- Mentifisto 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for battling the vandalism on my user page! Regards, CLW (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Test Edit

Yes it was unconstructive. I know. 91.108.236.105 (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe you can use the sandbox next time. :-) -- Mentifisto 18:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would, but it requires less effort to reach the Main Page discussion. 91.108.236.105 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

The people who type GNU/Linux into Wikipedia are looking for GNU not Linux. There was a message telling you where to go like if you wanted so see the Linux Distributions or the kernel. You just want people to think [[[Linux]] is GNU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Gilling (talk • contribs)

Most popularly GNU/Linux is Linux. Obviously GNU isn't as known as Linux and also technically GNU/Linux is the name of the OS. But I'll let others decide now. -- Mentifisto 01:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your welcome message of Wikipedia. I have been on wikipedia before with other usernames, so I am quite familiar (in total, over 800 edits). I do plan on staying, the community is very nice. Flaming Grunt 07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Facts

You just reverted my changes to The China Probrem, even though they changed the word "testicle" to "penis", which is correct according to the episode. 80.77.132.239 (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that was factual (yes, sure, anything's expected from South Park I guess...). The ulterior fact is that we get many people inserting 'penis' in articles randomly, so if it was factual it could easily be mistaken for vandalism. -- Mentifisto 11:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

gladiator vandalism reverts

Hi and thanks, Mentifisto. Haploidavey (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC).

Well, thanks for the hello, which has turned my sad-looking, lonely (well it was to me) red 'my talk' icon into a healthy-looking blue one (perverse sort of colour significance).

I've been trying to create new - or at least additional (for the time being) - links to new refs and notes. I gather the template's locked up. Is there also a tutorial on this? I couldn't find one in the links you kindly provided. Regards Haploidavey (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message at my talk and the link. Sorry, I'm not very good with this stuff. I've now read the link several times - I think I've got it. Haploidavey (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon's "Working Class Hero" edit war

Hi sir. I was looking at the Working Class Hero article and saw a sizable chunk dedicated to Green Day. This is not appropiate as many other artist have made a cover version of this song. Please don't revert my edits by explaining that I did not have a reason which I certainly posted. I will defend this article about a John Lennon song because no one deserves to pig tail on other's peoples work, and Green Day has no place in this article other than on the Notable covers section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.37.55 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry - my mistake. -- Mentifisto 05:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are you?

Eveilaje (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody. I just encountered your contributions and welcomed you. -- Mentifisto 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:91.153.136.16

Hi... I noticed your note on this user's talk page. I'm getting a soapy feeling about the ELs. I'm thinking about removing them per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "11. Links to... personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." I looked at the site, googled around about it: I don't see any evidence the writer is a "recognized authority". What do you think? --Rrburke^(talk) 17:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, way too many articles to be an authority on. Besides, they're like dictionary definitions and we don't usually link to every entry from a single dictionary on every article. -- Mentifisto 17:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What about this? This appears to be someone's personal website. Nice pics and all, and the guy is an architect, but the simple fact of being an architect doesn't make you a "recognized authority". --Rrburke^(talk) 17:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is just a personal website spread all over articles after all. They might as well link to google images for every article... if people want to find out more the resources are available. -- Mentifisto 18:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd add them to my mind-numblingly boring things I need to do list. Along with removing the mainspace ELs on this list and this one and this one.

Nick Philippines Kids Choice Awards

Good day, I actually did not vandalized. I only contributed the nominees for the local awards. Please look at the US version of that and compare to what I did. Thank You. --124.217.26.149 (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's reverted. -- Mentifisto 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

YBI

Hello! I am interested in this topic and wondered did you create this piece? Ho can I obtain more information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nursegirlgg (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure what you're referring to. YBI is a disambiguation page but no, I didn't create it. -- Mentifisto 02:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nanotech

I apologize for the vandolism on the Nanotech page173.70.222.151 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.222.151 (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Please edit constructively. -- Mentifisto 02:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, fellow RC patroller

Hi, I've recently started spending a heap of my time patrolling the Recent Changes, and have been reverting possible vandalism (lots of anonymous IP-based content deletions), I was wondering if you have any tips to give me on mopping up vandalism? Flaming Grunt 09:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you seem to use TW to do the job (which is a great program... just isn't optimized for rollback) huggle is an even better utility for patrolling. Much faster and efficient. Although first you'd need to request rollback (which is the best tool in itself for reversion since it communicates directly with the software). -- Mentifisto 09:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback. I'll try Huggle tomorrow. ;) Flaming Grunt 10:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to tell you that I've made a custom Bookmarklet for posting general warning into vandalists' pages:

javascript:void(document.getElementById('wpTextbox1').innerHTML+='\n\n==Vandalism==\n{{subst:uw-vandalism3}}\n\n');

Basically, it just appends the vandalism3 template as a stern warning to the user talk page

A level 3 warning to begin with? Do you bookmark this and access it every time you want to warn them? -- Mentifisto 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion

Umm... yeah, I know the level 3 is a bit straight there, but it is quite convenient for me.

Would huggle do the job automatically so I can dump my level 3 bookmarklet? Flaming Grunt 10:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with one click of a button huggle both reverts and warns. :-) -- Mentifisto 10:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Huggle is really better than TW for reversions... Getting huggle now... Flaming Grunt 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Huggle problem

Huggle says I need rollback rights to use it. Any suggestions on fixing that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaming Grunt (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to request it. -- Mentifisto 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ty

Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mczack26 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) -- Mentifisto 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Naheed Akhtar

Just a note that your revert here readded a copyvio. I know Huggle is great, but please take a little more care when using it :) Stifle (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I thought there might be something fishy but it wasn't overly suspicious; missed it. -- Mentifisto 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalising?

I am not a vandal, I'm reverting a vandal. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

why did you revert my deletion?

Im not a vandal, I know this person. Its his personal business and is NOT property of the public —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetblonde (talk • contribs) 11:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was referenced. Controversial sections still remain here even if the subject disagrees. -- Mentifisto 11:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

john

i have been editing a page on John Trollope. this man is my uncle and i am adding to this page as i feel i should why is my comment being deleted ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.185.86 (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Because commentaries shouldn't be in an encyclopedia and because of violating NPOV. If you want you can post it on the talk page although this isn't a case of thanking someone for creating a page... the page is there because your uncle meets the notability criteria and wouldn't be created if he wasn't and wanted one. -- Mentifisto 18:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct page should be Seljuk Sultanate of Rum

If you take at look at that redirect, you will see it needs to fixed. It is a case of vandalism. The Page should be Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. Thanks. WillMall (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes your right, the redirect should not be there. As you say, this is not explicit vandalism, but it is a pointless redirect and certainly not well intentioned. A quick scan of the discussion page shows consensus on this view. By the way, is there tag I can use that lets me reply on my page and also informs you that I replied? Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillMall (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC) WillMall (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

Go right ahead and block me. I don't care. I have a large bank of IP addresses here to use. 129.21.175.137 (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're a frikkin' hacker you fabberjibbit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveshakespere (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why again?

So basically, when i write something on wikipedia and change something it automatically is considered 'attacking' somebody, but when you change back harmless articles, minus the saint pats one, we just get changed back and no second thoughts? what kind of system is this?? please answer this one personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pucelemon (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted the saint pats one. -- Mentifisto 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I reverted this as well. But I don't suppose that's a legitimate now, yes? -- Mentifisto 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pucelon, it was me who removed your previous message [1] on this page, as I considered it offensive. Did you really want Mentifisto to reply to it? Marek.69 ^talk 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're dealing with a troll. -- Mentifisto 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching this[2]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) -- Mentifisto 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Mentifisto, I never thanked you properly for nominating me for adminship as Mentisock. If you would like to be nominated yourself, don't hesitate to tell me.--Berig (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Berig... no problem. I thought you were doing good and so would probably pass (had no idea that you were admin before though). In regards to the latter, it would be weird reciprocation, I suppose. -- Mentifisto 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know whether it would be a wierd reciprocation. I have seen you do a lot of vandal fighting and you have a high edit count. However, I probably shouldn't push you. Going through an RfA is not a nice experience.--Berig (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but besides that not much else (like you, with article building). It wouldn't be a nice experience because I don't have any GAs... I've been a gnome at heart, so far, so people will complain about that (and about the weird reciprocation bit - I meant that it would seem like we're exchanging nominations, which I don't suppose is normally sensible). But do you really think I've done well up to now? -- Mentifisto 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right. It would look like we were exchanging nominations, and I never thought that far. I just want you to know that I am grateful. As I had been an admin back in 2005 and I had effectively de-admined myself voluntarily, I really wondered whether I would ever go back to my former status as an admin. Just tell me if I can help you out with anything.--Berig (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, if I'm ever in need. :-) I think you could have been re-admined if you talked with a steward although I suppose re-gaining the trust using another username was appropriate (Keilana did a similar thing some time ago). -- Mentifisto 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the rollback on my talk page. Hope I can repay the favor someday (after all, it's always a good sign when you take away vandals attention from the encyclopedia and get it directed at you.) :-) Gnowor (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's no problem though! :-) -- Mentifisto 01:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Regards, --Carioca (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) -- Mentifisto 02:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Heywood is that YOU? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.78.37 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey bro. Thanks for undoing that edit made by 207.166.7.209 on Major League Gaming. Are you a member of MLG in any way? Treyvo (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I just patrol Special:RecentChanges. :-) -- Mentifisto 01:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep your mitts off my page!

I'll handle all the typos on my userpage if you don't mind, and that includes the one that you inserted. Thank you. Kelisi (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was going through a lot of pages with regex so false positives always exist although minimal. -- Mentifisto 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

admins and edits

if a person reaches a level four warning is their account deleted or is there a more severe punishment? if their account is simply deleted what stops them from creating a new account?

Accounts aren't really ever deleted but after the warnings (which are manual - MediaWiki doesn't do anything) they're reported to WP:AIV and blocked if necessary. If they create an account and start vandalizing again then the same happens and may be reported to WP:SSP (and a possible checkuser) if people notice the connection. -- Mentifisto 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is full of psuedo-intellectual drivel

Zen karma my meatspace, genki girl! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.100 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! SBHarris 23:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How to start an orchestra prod

• Perhaps it should actually be transwiki-ed instead of prod-ded? SMSpivey (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, forget about it. Not at all useful for Wikihow, either, honestly. Sorry for the bother! SMSpivey (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Appreciate that! — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 01:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IP 68.42.222.7

This IP received a uw-v4 on March 8, 2009. I felt that the level 1 vandalism notice you issued to that IP regarding its edits to List of Heroes episodes was somewhat conservative given the explicit nature of the vandalism. I have reported the IP to WP:AIV in any event. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, thank you for reverting unwelcome edits on my page. LovesMacs (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

You have been paged because a user has reported a high level of vandalism and you are listed as a contact.

This is an automatically generated message. If problems occur, please contact User:nathanww. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The King's a-poopin' (talk • contribs) 12:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Caction tool

Hey Mentifisto. That was actually an intentional feature – the toolbox links only appear on base user and user talk pages, so it seemed logical to have the links solely in the user options menu, keeping things the same on all user pages. If you want, there's a new option which you can configure to suppress the removal of the toolbox links. (The links will still appear in the user options menu; since MediaWiki doesn't add the toolbox links on user/user talk subpages, having the menu links will still be useful in some cases.) haz (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Mentifisto 02:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry from furryblobs

sorry about my edit to the church of england like i said to lilac soul i did not know about the toolbox before now sorry form fuuryblobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furryblobs (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Usually admins will delete accompanying talk pages of articles they deleted. So there's no need to tag both the article and the talk page. If they do forget to delete the talk page, you could then just use the CSD G8 tag. Killiondude (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

hi

fair call just dont like that guy. got a question though, how come vandalism is immediately picked up, but when i lament on state of minds discussion page that the article is out of date, it will go unnoticed for months? 121.98.147.250 (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because vandalism (or any edits) could be seen at Special:RecentChanges. Patrollers might see the message on the talk page but since most probably they aren't interested in the band they won't do anything. You'd need to contact someone who is - User_talk:Nzmusichead began the article but hasn't edited since then. Or you can of course improve it yourself. :-) -- Mentifisto 02:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

so to really bring change I need to vandalise that article to draw attention to it?121.98.147.250 (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No... if there's nobody that could improve it nobody would. Vandalizing will only attract negative attention. -- Mentifisto 02:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

meh... hopefully someone will verify it as opposed to just deleting it.... 121.98.147.250 (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not usually deleted if it's not blatant vandalism. Only controversial edits that are unsourced are deleted mostly. -- Mentifisto 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)