User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Escape Orbit. 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 talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Edit war

I do not want to start an edit war. What policy allows you to police the discussion between editors about the development of an article? Feel free to add to the discussion, but please refrain from censoring other people's comments on talk pages. USchick (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply on USchick's page. Unfortunately discussion on the talk page was not about the article, it was about analysing images on the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

correcting 'British' grammar

I just got a message informing me that I had changed what I had seen as grammar mistakes on the British Def Leppard band page; I was not aware that the Brits like to use plurals when referring to the word "band" when I would consider the "members" as plural, but the "band" as a singular. I will not do that again and certainly will respect the 'difference' in grammar rules. But do I have to go back and reverse the corrections I made in that particular article?

Thanks...

Blackrabbitgirl (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

mentioned on WQA

Hi, just wanted to give you a heads up you've been mentioned (by me) at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Alphathon. But not in a bad way, I think. Gerardw (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Eric Nicks Page

Hi,

I added some more references to Eric Nick's page and made it more objective per your request. I hope the new references provide the validity and notability you were looking for and remove Eric's page from Speedy Deletion.

Thanks for your time, Azar — Preceding unsigned comment added by AzarBogan (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. As far as I can recall, I have never looked at the Eric Nicks article, far less edited it or nominated it for deletion. Nor has the article ever been nominated for deletion, by anyone. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

references for pictures

Hey, shouldnt we leave references for the street art picture Blank? I saw you removed it.

Cheers,

Pedro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedroalmovar (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The ref you added didn't go anywhere that confirmed anything about the image added. So there was no point to it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

R.H. Campbell

Thanks for taking a look at R.H. Campbell It seems that there is a co-editor of the book with that name but the rest is VERY questionable indeed!!Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)I wrote the R.H. Campbell page. Teapot, what's your problem with it? I listed a great deal of references but all were deleted. I have put a few back. If you have any questions about this page, please ask me. What information on it do you question? I'll gladly help, as I don't want it deleted. Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Explained how to add cites on Abbythecat's talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

R.H. Campbell

Abbythecat (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)I'm Abbythecat, I wrote the page "R.H. Campbell". Please don't delete it. If you have any questions about it, just ask and I'll gladly answer. I have added references and catagories several times but someone keeps deleting them. I'll keep trying, but somebody is intentionally deleting this information. I hope whoever is doing this will stop. Again, I'll help in any way to keep this page. JUST ASK. Thanks. Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)I just now AGAIN added 4 references and 2 categories, so if they are deleted AGAIN, then someone is intentionally hurting my page, which is probably hoaxing, and it should quit. Whoever is doing this should be blocked. Next they will no doubt go after the only other page I wrote, THE RETURN OF BILLY JACK. Whoever is doing this, please leave my pages alone. Thanks. Abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I have put on your talk page. These are not acceptable or proper references. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And now it appears that you've had all these discussions at least once before, with the exact same article and exact same problems. There's little point in pleading with people to "JUST ASK" if you don't pay any attention to what has been explained to you repeatedly before. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete "R.H. Campbell" and "The Return Of Billy Jack"

Abbythecat (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)I propose that both articles I wrote be deleted as quickly as possible. Please delete "R.H. Campbell" and "The Return Of Billy Jack". Neither are notable. Neither are written within the correct guidelines. Neither have correct references or categories. Both are worthless. My apologies for even trying. Please delete both as quickly as possible. I won't resubmit either again in any form. In fact, I will never submit anything else. I don't want to be blocked, but if you can "close my account" (as it were) -- meaning just get rid of my "log in" -- please do so. No hard feelings. I'm not angry or sad. I really am sorry for wasting your time. I find it odd these 2 pages were up for almost 4 weeks before anyone complained. I wonder why the delay? Anyway, best -- "so let it be written! so let it be done!" Abbythecat (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)abbythecat.Abbythecat (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: R.H. Campbell

Hello Escape Orbit. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of R.H. Campbell, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please provide a link to the previous deletion discussion. Thank you. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Kings

First off, thank you for correcting the entry regarding the Jerusalem Kings.

Second, just so you are aware, the edits that were made are in no way an attempt by the C&MA to promote itself. The edits are actually a change that's being done with malicious intent. The edits that the user Tiffone, Getondown and ip 85.65.14.215 made all contain personal information on people on the team and the accusations made can effect safety, family standing in a community, job opportunities and legal standing in the nation of Israel. So, it's not only hard on the people mentioned it's a deliberate attack on the C&MA organization and the people mentioned.

Third, as you've probably seen, the entry has been repeatedly changed. Several of us from the team and friends from across the IFL have been trying to follow the correct procedure in order to get these edits stopped, but it's been a big problem. If there is any advice that you can give us in order to get the entry locked, it would be greatly appreciated. We've even had to correct it once again during the last few days. Generally, the edits are done twice by the same user, then the user changes and edits it twice, and so on.

Thank you for your time, and please feel free to contact me at [e-mail] if you would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gester76 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re

I started an ANI thread, which I removed; if you like you can restart it. I wouldn't be against it. I think we have a competence problem here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Update; User:Kudpung seems to have a handle on the situation here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what I like ...

How is it of no reference to "anything" ? I was stating facts. The song can be heard "In popular culture" on the 2010 Top Gear Christmas special. I believe your edit of my edit to be utterly unfair and quite frankly very insulting. As you were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan.benn (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you found my edit summary "insulting", that's the danger of 1 line summaries, they tend to sound abrupt. The question would be how is this significant to the song or to people who wish to know about the song? Not very, I think. The song can be heard "In popular culture" in countless places, it is popular culture. So listing it under "In popular culture" is no excuse for trivia of no notability. And it wasn't cited either. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I shall cite and reference it properly if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan.benn (talk • contribs) 01:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ref: Dharma Records

Hi there I'd like to take you up on your implied suggestion that an independent label founder and his/her provenance is not relevant. It is quite common on wiki to include this as a way of suggesting the ethos and provenance (again) of an indie label. Random examples include XL Recordings, Instant Karma record label, B-Unique Records, Bella Union, Beggars Banquet Records, and many others. In fact I would suggest that it is quite important. Regards Riverman48 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but the problem with this article was it spent more time in the lead discussing the label's founder than the label itself. It was also confusingly phrased, I couldn't follow what parts were record labels, which parts were bands and which parts were recordings.

Could you also clarify whether you have a conflict of interest in this? What I have gathered from your edits is that you are the label founder. Creating articles about yourself in Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina

I did leave a link to support the fact that two letters had been written. It was deleted. Your complaint is spurious and slanted. The link is here: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=kat_71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Donald (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a link to a user generated wiki, which doesn't support what you're saying anyway. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandal clean up on Paul Revere page

Thanks. I found this lovely falafel on another major contributer's page and thought you deserved one as well!

Amadscientist (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

--Amadscientist (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm, I love Falafel. Thanks! --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Album capitalization

That's all nice for generalities, but don't you think the way the artist writes it on the album should have something to do with it, too? Or that what we do match the way it appears in every other source? On Hounds of Love "Running Up That Hill" is either spelt with all words capitalized, or with "up" and "that" uncapitalized. On my video, it's spelt with all caps. Make a decision, but make it consistent. If you revert all the "thats" you should go in and change all the "Ups" to "ups" too.--TEHodson 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Answer on TEHodson's page --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What's weird is that someone else just came along and changed all the "That's" to lower case. They've always been upper case, for years. I don't understand why they got changed in the first place. This is one of the many fiddly things that drives me crazy about this place and makes me take LLLLOOONNNNGGGG breaks from editing here. I think it not only should be standardized in a sane way (virtually everyone capitalizes all words in song titles), or should reflect the way the artist does it, but it looks ridiculous right now: Running Up that Hill, and it now matches NONE of the ways in which the song title is listed anywhere else. But really, I don't care what you do. It's hardly a life or death problem. --TEHodson 23:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Intro To Schrödinger's Cat

Please comment on my suggested introduction on the talk page A2326xyz (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Speculation about Mona Lisa ‎

That user is on his third account, as you can see from the talk page on the article. He's been attempting to insert his OR into the article for months now, after having given up on doing so in the main Mona Lisa page. Not sure if WP has an "automatic ban" policy or the like, but as soon as this guy creates another account he'll be right back doing the same annoying editing of the page.--Chimino (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

thanks for detecting and clearing vandalism. Is it possible to find any information about the user who is writing the vandal statements? - can we get the ipaddress or any other identification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantm (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re. Maharaja Lawak

Foiled by the translator... Chrome thought the page was in Swahili and the translation made it seem like it was about a comedian and there was no corresponding article in the Swahili WP. Now I see it's Malay. XXX antiuser ^eh? 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well your guess was as good as my first one! :) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Kit house

Hey friend, I know ordinary social blogs are not appropriate for external links - but the one you removed is written by a "recognized authority" on this subject, who has published several books about Sears and other kit homes. So I'm restoring the link, per criteria at WP:ELNO, number 11. Textorus (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Escape Orbit. You have new messages at Ebikeguy's talk page.
Message added 15:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ebikeguy (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Paleontological Inaccuracies section

I think that you shouldn't delete the Paleontological Inaccuracies section because it pointed the endless mistakes made by the creators of the Walking with Series, even though they might have done their best.

However, if you still think that there is no problem in deleting the section, that is OK. If you think that you should put the section back, that is also OK.

I would suggest, if you decide to put the section back, to make sure that the Walking with Dinosaurs actually depicted 'this'. Delete the 'fact' if you see that the Walking with Dinosaurs did not depict 'this'. Also delete the 'facts' that aren't true. Remember that it is definitely OK to think that there is no problem in deleting the section. Thank you for reading.

P.S. This is just a suggestion and also, I like your user page, it is awesome!!! Timelinearth (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Timelinearth

Please write a message back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timelinearth (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Xavier Brieze

I recently joined wiki to assist in the child support information situation in the US. I went to relevant pages and offered a link to a website that will truly help others with this situation. I am not a spammer. Why was I called a spammer? XavierBrieze (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No one called you a spammer. But you were adding links to Wikipedia that go to your own website. If you would like to assist in providing child support information, then please improve the content on Wikipedia, not simply lead readers to your website. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a directory of weblinks. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Monk and the Leper

I was under the impression that the plot shouldn't be that long on Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I like all that trivia and come to Wikipedia to see it and I hate that Wikipedia regards trivia in such a negative way if policies are actually followed. Sure, I can go back in the histories of the articles, but this is information I enjoy reading. I suppose lack of sources is a problem, but if the information were properly sourced, would that help?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Supported. I also like adding trivia and goof information, like the stuff that you removed from the "Mr. Monk's 100th Case" page. Some of that background information has been around for a long time and can be very important. For the record, I'm in support with Vchimpanzee here. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I just also wanted to add further on, some of the information you removed from that page in question was information that had been there for years and was generally accepted. For the record, if it's been there a long time, "don't... change anything." DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I found that part about Randy and the wall interesting. There the hole in the wall was, and there it wasn't. I'm not observant like Monk, though I am neurotic like he is, but I did see that. By the way, I'm seeing the episodes for the first time as I didn't want to pay for cable.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt you find it interesting, but I don't think "I like it" trumps "no original research". And we are agreed this is original research, something that is a against core Wikipedia policy? Naturally there is an element of personal opinion that comes with defining trivia and fancruft, but original research is fairly easy to define. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could find such information on a site like Wikipedia which had some permanence to it, and some kind of "official" status. I started to say reliable, but then once people start adding this sort of thing the site ceases to be reliable. I trust comments like these, though.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly how not to use Wikipedia. It's not "official" because it's on Wikipedia. It's "official" because it's sourced to a reliable source, and this trivia isn't. If you'd like to record Monk trivia that you've worked out, then the place to do it on a fansite. Not Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just want to read it. I don't want to have to go to a bunch of sites to do it.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what Wikipedia does, it's an encyclopedia. And if you want to check, you can go to "a bunch of sites". My point is that this is original research That means it isn't anywhere but Wikipedia and the reader has no idea if it's correct or not and no way of checking. They only have the word of an anonymous editor who could be wrong, mistaken, mislead or even malicious. That's why Wikipedia doesn't do original research and isn't a fansite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that part of it I can accept.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Still, that part about Randy's hole in the wall sounds believable. It must have come from somewhere. Our problem is finding where.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh there's no problem with most of it. It's almost all believable, and probably even all accurate as well. But that's not the problem with it. Criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia isn't "well, it sounds like it's probably true". It's verifiability. So it would be great if you could find a source. And please remember, fan sites and forums are generally not reliable sources, as they're equally just some fan's take on things which has all the same problems. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Eatyourkimchi

Could you please reply on Talk:Eatyourkimchi. Thanks, Cloveapple (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kylie Jenner

I see that you are becoming as frustrated with changes at Kylie Jenner as I have become, and as another long-term patroller was before me. Can I float an idea past you regarding her height? She is 13/14 y.o. and will be growing rapidly, so the height issue would be awkward even if it were reliably sourced.

I have been unable to locate a modeling agency that contains the info and that would seem to me to be the best option. In the absence of that, and bearing in mind her age/growth situation, would it not be more sensible for us simply to remove that parameter entirely? I have absolutely no interest at all in any of this family but the amount of petty changes, insertion of copyvios etc that go on across their articles is incredible. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you take another look?

I really appreciated your earlier explanation about peacock terms. Could you give Eatyourkimchi another quick look and see what new attrocities I've committed? ;-) I know I've probably done a lot of beginner's mistakes. Cloveapple (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

I posted my reasoning for deleting the classification alternative medicine from osteopathy on the discussion page. What did not get posted was the reason for reinstating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroofbeam (talk • contribs) 21:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert piotrowicz

The article Robert piotrowicz has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the dangers of page moves.. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sorry! I tagged it just moments after you moved it. Feel free to remove the notice. I will tags the original editor. Cheers!! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

'Conspiracy Theories'

The portion under natural born citizen was missing the other side of the argument. There are numerous occasions which cite a definition similar to the one I included. It is also true the the law suits based on this were indeed thrown out of court thus never ruled upon. If it is not ruled upon, the court has not officially made their comments official. With that being said, it is still a plausible argument that he does not meet the definition of Natural Born. It is also fact that over the past 10 years there has been 8 unsuccessful attempt to remove the term 'natural born' as a presidential requirement. The last time Obama was a sponsor.

It is indeed odd that the term natural born is ONLY located in the section in regards to the president and not congress. It can be deducted that there must be a difference between natural born citizen and citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcallihan1 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether there are numerous sources with a definition of "natural born" or not isn't the issue. You need a source that discusses them specifically in connection with Obama. Connecting sources that do not do this with the case of the US President is original synthesis, which is not permissible. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mariah Carey edits,

On "All I Want For Christmas Is You", it is relevant to include since it is a "CLASSIC" christmas song. DO I NEED TO PUT REPUTABLE SOURCES FOR YOU?hehehe... And critics called it as one of her MOST IMPORTANT song., so therefore it is relevant to put it in there. :D

Next, on "the numerous thing" although it is an opinion I added reputable sources just to shut you up. :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by REGICUAZA (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope this covers it.

I listed my references. I hope this ends this bickering. Thank you for cleaning my references up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfwildcat (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's wonderful what can be achieved when people collaborate. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rotherham United F.C.

Thank you for your help with the recent edits to the Rotherham United F.C. page. I was unaware of the rules around original research, so accept the reasons for my changes being revoked.

There appears to be an editing war over the Current Players section on this page, which you have been involved in. User 62.189.19.125 keeps altering the players to be in a non-standard order, as you quite rightly pointed out yourself, but these changes continue being made. I am new to this 'site - is there any way of stopping this?

Best regards 194.75.128.200 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hesham Saleh

why did you put a speedy deletion tag on Hesham Saleh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesham44 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it is a recreation of an article on a non-notable junior tennis player that has already been deleted twice before. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

on the "among others" thing

The sentence is too bland If I said influenced britney,...upto regine and not stating among others, because clearly she has influenced many artists. If I would name them all(of course with wikipedia pages) it would be like 5 paragraphs, so please leave the "among others" thing alone. :D Its not pointless you know. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by REGICUAZA (talk • contribs) 15:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Among others" tells the reader nothing except that the writer would like them to know that she has influenced others, but either can't, or won't say, who. It is also redundant; the sentence already states that those she has influenced "includes" the named people. So naturally you don't list absolutely everyone. The reader understands that it is not setting out to to be an all inclusive list. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

BUT BOTTOMLINE IS THERE ARE MANY, and BTW MJ's page has also the among others thing in his page,. Its so unfair why you only attack Mariah's page and being too strict(in that nature). — Preceding unsigned comment added by REGICUAZA (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not "attacking" Mariah's page, I am trying to stop it turning into a fansite and remain a featured article in an encyclopaedia. But you keep adding puffery that hammers the reader with how wonderful and successful and great Carey is. Try to stick to actual facts and the reader will get it without your enthusiastic endorsement. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

'

Cause she is wonderful, great and successful duh!., hahaha. LOL...but anyways yeah you're right I have my mistakes, I was so caught up with the so called "puffery". And by the way those are facts she did "AMASSED" many honors and awards.:D --Kyogrouza 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for that little correction. It was neutral, precise, balanced and most importantly the sentence was interesting and not dull. btw you can erase this, tnx --Kyogrouza 16:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by REGICUAZA (talk • contribs)

"Kentucky Basketball Cumulative All Time Statistics"

I've cleaned up the format of this section in order to satisfy the demands of the mods of the page. I hope that my current edits are satisfactory with the wishes and protocol of this subject's Wiki page. I like the current version, and I tried hard to get it within guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbfwildcat (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain your recent reversion reason

"no topical reason?" They are similar sites and prob the best known file sharing sites.1archie99 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

With my Humblest apologies

I would like to formally apologize for any trouble I may have caused you when I edited the Nick Cherukuri page. So, to say it once more, I am sorry. Chimpfunkz (talk)

Confusion about Information

Hello. I checked your edit to the article on the family guy episode "Lethal Weapons" and you stated that my comment may be considered "original research". I think that, due to the many sources that back up my claim, this could be considered common knowledge. I am not trying to be an annoyance, I once wrote an article on my old account and I later found someone deleted it. However, there are many objects of misinformation throughout the internet as a whole. If you read my contribution to Ninjutsu talk, you will understand the edit I made to the Ninjutsu article. Before my edit it said Ninja were dishonorable (This "fact" is debatable, since many sources say that ninja were of the samurai class, and All samurai had to follow Bushido.) As well as saying that they used Sai and Kama (Both weapons were Okinawan, not Japanese.) I apologize if this seems off-topic. I am not trying to antogonize you, I am just trying to prove a point.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinobi 224 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)