lol! :) The bot wasn't discounting Jeff, it just has problems, with humans not using machine-readable rationales :) Now that there's a second oppose, it's counting them correctly :) SQLQuery me!21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Odoacer was not a hun but a Germanic king, he served in earlier life the Hun but at the time of the roman empire fall the Huns were already gonefrom history, Odoacer was leader of germanic tribes and became king of italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.118.151 (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting the section on the article 'Ho Yeow Sun' earlier. I'm a member of WP:FACT & despite my previous NPOVediting & verification (I'm an uninvolved party) of the affected section in helping to alleviate the situation. The revert war, raging on for months by a group of recalcitrant deletists ('Jing13', 'Cane sg', including acts of sockpuppetry, COI edits etc), & anonymous IPs still continue unabated to this very day. As such, I would like to request a permanent page protection (against anonymous IPs editing) until the case is fully resolved as per talkpage discussion in order to uphold one of the five pillars of Wikipedia on the article. I hope this nonsense can come to an end once & for all, for the common good of Wikipedia in the long run. Thank u. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I get that a lot, maybe its because People think I have been in Wikipedia so long that I might be an admin, honest mistake..Thanks anyways.. :) ..--Cometstyles10:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huggle User Category
Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please justify your re-insertion of an unsourced personal essay into the Extremism article. Articles on Wikipedia must meet WP:V and be verifiable with citations to reputable published sources. That section was somebody's personal essay. 70.108.97.105 (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandals
Hi, I thought I'd drop you a message, as I've seen you a lot on Huggle. It seems you are a very active vandal fighter, and, I think you should be commended for your efforts, so...
moved to userpage
WP:RFA/Cometstyles 3
I think you'd make the English Wikipedia better if you were an administrator here. I'm a novice nomination writer, but if you'll accept, I'd be happy to nominate you. WODUP (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, again, not interested Yet, maybe when I start attacking editors and becoming a pain in the ***, I may qualify ..hehe...--Cometstyles20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya... I'm not sure whether the info there is valid or not, so I yanked it per WP:BLP as unsourced, since it seems questionable, because the rest of the article doesn't allude to it. Feel free to readd it if you know of a source. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk /12:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Faraday's law
Cometstyles, I don't know what you know about Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction.
Yesterday the wikipedia article on Faraday's law was in good shape until Steve Byrnes imposed his confusion on it.
Steve Byrnes has identified the well known fact that the Faraday's law in Maxwell's modern equations only caters for the inductive, but not the convective vXB aspect of electromagnetism. This seems to have caused him alot of confusion.
I do however believe that he now sees the picture.
Unfortunately his edits to the Faraday's law wikipedia article represented a case of somebody thinking out loud while trying to rationalize with the connection between two different forms of Faraday's law.
He has over zealously amended the article by confusing these two forms with the issue of there being two different Faraday's laws.
The deficiency of the Maxwell/Heaviside version can easily be explained in a sub-section.
There is only one Faraday's law. There is no need for all the confusion that Steve Byrnes has added to what was a clear cut article about Faraday's law.
That's why the article was reverted back to the way it was yesterday.
Yet you seem to be adamant that Steve Byrnes' new version should remain.
You've just reverted my edit on English orthography, claiming it would have been unconstructive. It can't see why: I had added phonetic information about how to read the words using ou digraph, which was on topic, especially for people who do not speak English as a first language and do not necessarily know how to pronounce the words given as example.
I had also removed one item (lazy) out of the list of words which, said the article, contain the same vowel as in me, i.e. /iː/. Please check in any good dictionary: the phonetic values for famous, journey, loud, should, you, flour and tour I had given were correct and there is no /iː/ in lazy, which is commonly read /leɪzɪ/ (Robert & Collins, Dictionnaire anglais-français, English-French Dictionary).
At last, I had put in bold letters the ones which should be read /iː/ in the list paediatric, me, seat, seem, ceiling, people, chimney, machine, siege and phoenix because guessing which of all the vowels in these words has to be read so is not self evident.
Moreover, I had filled the edit box to justify my edit.
I really do not appreciate this kind of quick and not thoroughly thought reverts; you made me waste my time. I will revert your revert: do what you want thereafter, I won't care but do not expect people to commit themselves to Wikipedia with this sort of behaviour.
Howdy, this is just to let you know that one of your rollbacks was too hasty. A good faith, correct, and needed edit by an anonymous editor appears to have been rollbacked by you.
Everyone in counter vandalism makes mistakes, so this is not a warning or even a complaint. I just wanted you to see the edit in case you come across more like this. Usually if the anon contrib is in vaguely complete sentences without profanity or slurs, the edit should be treated as good faith. If the edit has bad grammar or spelling, this should be corrected, with an edit summary. Leaving out the edit summary makes the edit seem no better than vandalism, and discourages new editors from editing and getting an account. This anon is probably an experienced editor from pl.wikipedia.org as its recent edits are often interwiki, while his IP was used by vandals before, so I think he understands the occasional improper rollback. At any rate, thanks for your work. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the last fifty or so rollbacks, and by far most are right on target. There were a couple of good-faith edits that probably should have been reverted with edit summary (such as "unsourced addition"), rather than rollbacked as (no better than) vandalism.
Maybe he is right outside your house..looking through the window O_O :P ..hehehe..and thankies for the Barnstar..wow..that revert was in February :D--Cometstyles04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What?
Why are you trying to block me adding a template to the world rowing championship pages?
you were also removing the "succession box" as well which is not allowed, you can add stuff bvut not by removing another important template...--Cometstyles10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hashim Thaçi. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Cloudz679 (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't assuming good faith on my part. I just don't want to see you blocked for patrolling a page because I've seen it happen before. Cloudz679 (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was, he vandalized 5 times but I only warned him twice, I could have easily warned him 2 more times and reported him to AIV, but I didn't and yeah chances of me getting blocked by admins for three-revert rule is pretty slim, since I'am an established editor and most admins have given me the benefit of the Doubt previously and so I'm not worried that much, and I hope they continue doing so :) ..thanks ..--Cometstyles11:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes it isn't, but that person was removing/replacing information section by section, and he didn't realize that someone earlier had reverted his previous, (see the time) 'vandalism' and so he either trying to Prove a point or was trying to sneak in vandalism without anyone noticing and this edit shows what exactly he was trying to do, i.e change information without giving any reason in the Edit summary and secondly he was removing Sourced information from an article, i'm sorry, I don't have time to prove who was right and who was wrong...some people actually work around here :P ..hehe..--Cometstyles11:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following the 3RR reports made just against both you and Mospyt, it is clear to me that you have done no wrong here. Your only blockworthy offence is being a fan of the All Blacks :P 52 Pickup(deal)15:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gad, that's a terrible mess. I've put a paragraph on the subject in the Talk page for the article which you may want to check out - I've outlined why I did those edits. Do be aware the information in the Story section IS inaccurate - that's what I was trying to address. I'm not sure what you mean about additional categories though; I thought they were just minor plain-text edits?
--Targ Collective (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] Had another look - I can see what those extra lines did to the layout. The extra categories must have been put in by default somehow, I just fiddled with the phrasing. ...I'm not sure what's going on. I'll play with in Sandbox mode for a bit maybe, and try and find out where things are messed up.
--Targ Collective (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I see you declared the discussion closed, but I cannot find a corresponding request in bugzilla:, consequently the wiki is still open. Did you not request the devs to close this wiki? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that isn't the only one and the developers are not bothered enough, there are some other wikis that have been closed, I would say over 15 wikis but till the devs have free time to close it, its still open, though discussions have closed..but if someone wants to overturn the closure, they are more than welcome to try and do so.. cheers ..--Cometstyles11:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My request for bureaucratship
Dear Cometboy, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If u were to look at the article, u would realise it is in a terrible mess because everytime i try to edit it back and organise it, some smart alec does the opposite. pls prevent this from happening.
thanks.
Red Tag
Hi Cometstyles - Not sure if I should be posting this to you or MayallD, as both of them seem to have been involved in the vigorous attempt to keep my small page on Red Tag visible to the world. I am the author of this page, and the reason I'm trying to remove it is that I've been informed that it may well be entirely incorrect. We were trying to put neutral information about the technology out there as early as possible, and it might well have been too early. Is it possible that I could re-post my delete request without getting kicked off?
MattB242 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In thanks for fixing vandalism on one/some/all of my userpages I reward you this bootleg CD of your favorite band/musician. Enjoy!
warning
This edit [2], which you have edit warred over by repeatedly inserting it, could be considered vandalism. It is an accusation of bad faith, and has no place in article text. Please stop this kind of contentious editing. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They call them croissantsI would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, I've made you this French pastry. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 13:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took so long for someone to nip around and block this editor. I dropped a Level 4 warning, which they violated almost immediately, so that takes care of that. I'll add that, if it was someone who thought they were improving the article, I'll discuss an unblock with them - but, given the lack of discussion from this user, that seems unlikely. Thanks for holding the line. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, only problem is that most admins don't know what a "Vandalism-only Account" is, oh well better late then never.. :) ...--Cometstyles12:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncostruction?
It is constructive, because there isn't any contemporary sources for the "Poznan" name. Please send me a contemporary source, where they used it!
The word "Slovak" firstly used in the XV. century, only for peasants.
Gigi's Friends
Hi, I'm the one who edited "Gigi's Friends" article.
It needs to be deleted because Gigi d'Agostino never made that album.
