User talk:Nick/Archive2

Archives

1 2

Hello and Welcome - Please Feel Free To Leave A Message

Gene Frankel

I am confused. Why have you reverted my edits to Gene Frankel? Can you please explain your rationale? The information, I contributed to that article is accurate and correct. [1] I would appreciate an explaination. KindSould 22:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article as a portion of the text was incorrectly formatted (highlighted in Bold).

Born Eugene Frankel in New York in 19http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_Frankel&action=edit Edit this page19 or 1920

.

Ouch! Did I do that? If I did it definitely wasn't intentional. You'll have to forgive me, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and am still learning. Thanks for your help in fixing my mistake. My appologies! KindSould 23:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:13453.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:13453.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'automated' revert of Polyethylene

Okay, you're not the only one to use the VP tool in this way, but please go back and actually check what you're reverting - in this edit. I'm sick and tired of seeing bots and tools revert edits that have been manually checked as vandalism. If you still think your edit was correct then by all means revert once more, but please check what the tools are getting you to do, don't revert blindly. Cheers! Budgiekiller 20:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason there's an almost complete version of the page added below the end of the page proper. When that is deleted as a legit edit, it looks like the whole article has been removed , like a page blanking vandal is at work. AA Milne 21:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to add - if you can add as much detail to Edit Summary as possible, if there's a legit reason for a massive change then I'll normally not revert anything, but if there's a big edit with no explanation then it's easier to make a mistake and revert something that doesn't need to be reverted. AA Milne 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I'm being castigated by another user who is blindly implementing VP for 'vandalism'. This is not acceptable - use of tools such as VP should be moderated by editors checking what the tool is suggesting. I know what happened to the page because I checked it before I reverted the vandalism. I would appreciate it if editors who use these tools actually concede that the tool and its use is flawed. I've been on RC patrol (manually) for over a year - "rvv" is a conventional term for reversion of vandalism - the edit summary that VP provides is totally useless. I use my discretion, not a tool, to make these decisions. Cheers! Budgiekiller 21:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use VP purely for vandalism. I'll reguarly notice utter nonsense on a page and manually remove text that VP will not remove with a basic revert or without removing a lot of good content. I've just had to revert the article Pencoed in this way. The trouble with the Polythene article was that what was a copy of the Wikipedia article from another site copied and pasted back onto the bottom of the page made your edit look as if the whole page had been deleted. Please accept my apologies. AA Milne 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, apology accepted, thank you for your dialogue. Good luck with your future edits, hope to bump into you again in brighter circumstances! All the best, cheers! Budgiekiller 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

Why did you revert my merge of The Firm into Firm? The potential for confusion between the two titles is so obvious I should think it doesn't need to be explained. --Russ (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pretty major change without any indication of a mergeto and mergefrom tag on either page and thus no talk on the idea of a merger. AA Milne 20:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move a page

• Talk:İnebolu -- There is a page about the Inebolu Article about . Inebolu is also the english orthography of İnebolu. --Koraman 16:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • İnebolu → Inebolu--Koraman 21:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal warning

No problem or anything, but you dropped a red-handed vandal warning on my talk page in connection with an edit that wasn't mine. Just thought I'd let you know in case it was a bug with your AntiVandalBot. Bolivian Unicyclist 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as per your talk page, it's a very isolated bug with VP2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VP2/Bugs#Warning_given_to_wrong_person AA Milne 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. No worries. Thanks for the apology. Bolivian Unicyclist 22:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverted?

hey

I just made some constructive criticisms on the SCEGS Shore article that were removed despite their validity. Whilst I posted the comments rather than change the article myself to reflect the correct grammar, I felt that it was more pertinent to the discussion to leave the edits with the comments as an ironic statement on the school itself, as nothing is more telling than a school boasting of its academic qualifications than doing so in a lauguage that is at best bastardised English. ^Unsigned comment added by 124.189.179.54 on 17th October 2006

Hi. I don't get into arguments about spelling and grammar and to be honest, I never even looked at the issues you outlined, but comments and personal opinions should not be added to the main Wikipedia page. If you've a problem with a page, leave a message on the talk page Talk:Sydney_Church_of_England_Grammar_School and/or make the necessary corrections yourself. I didn't consider your editing vandalism and I haven't left a vandalism warning on your talk page. AA Milne 12:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I understand why in most cases such insignificant issues as grammar should be ignored, however there are instances where they provide pithy insight into the school pshyche, and in such cases they should be allowed to stand, and should be commented on as a way of recognising what they represent. When considering an article, both form and content are equally important in the way it is recieved, and to ignore one in favour of the other seems to be negligent.

WP:VPT

You just reverted a legitimate edit there, so I have re-reverted you. Please check that an edit is really vandalism before reverting, especially when you use semiautomatic tools. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a red link when I reverted it. Sorry about that. AA Milne 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. A super-long red link does look very much like disruption. Anyway, no harm done. Best wishes, Kusma (討論) 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?????????????

Why you reverted my edits at Crimes of the occupiers in Vojvodina, 1941-1944? PANONIAN (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article as you removed tags from your own article. I do understand the article is now better referenced, but you really shouldn't be removing the neutral tag from your article. Such edits can occasionally result in warnings and in extreme cases, your account being blocked. AA Milne 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These tags were added by known vandal VinceB, who was already blocked for sockpuppetry. Besides this, he did not stated a reason for these tags. Posting of such tags should be usually elaborated on the article talk page what he did not done. I am ready to discuss relevance of these tags with all serious editors here if there is need for that. PANONIAN (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there appears to be a genuine reason for your removal of the tags, please accept my humble apologies. AA Milne 20:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. :) PANONIAN (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP

You are gonna die, if you don't believe in Ulla - but you can still be saved. Just believe me: ULLA IS TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Levykevandaali 10:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP

Hi, you made an edit to my talk page saying that I'd vandalised Windows XP, link. I think you've made a mistake. -- Ashadeofgrey 11:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bug with VP2, go ahead and remove the warning from your page and I'll drop a warning on the talk page of the user above.

Methyldopa

Hi, I see you've reverted my reversion of a spammer's edit to Methyldopa. I presume it was a mistake (though if it wasn't, fell free to let me know) – would you mind reverting back? I've already rv'd the page twice in the past few minutes and would hate to get penalized under WP:3RR. Thanks a lot, Fvasconcellos 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As directly stated on merck-information.com:

Please note that http://www.merck-information.com is in no way affiliated with Merck® & Co., inc. or any of its affiliates.

Meaning it is not a legitimate link to one of the manufacturer's websites. Fvasconcellos 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly has the manufacturers name in the URL, I had no reason to believe it wasn't part of the manufacturers site. AA Milne 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK – sorry if I came across aggressively, spamlinks on drug pages just really tick me off. Fvasconcellos 21:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll keep an eye out for any similair spamlinks being added in now you've pointed them out to me. Best Wishes AA Milne 21:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Yachts

AA Milne,

You have removed a great deal of material from an article which I have been working on. You asserted copyright violations which I assume to be related to photos and a timeline. This is not true; I have unrestricted permission from Catalina Yachts to use any photos from their website. The Vice President of Catalina Yachts reviewed the article this morning and approved it (prior to editing by Csobrito).

I want to work within the guidelines. Rather than rejecting my work, please help me to fine tune it to meet standards.

Sincerely

Kevin Murray 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article needs to be your own work, not something copied and pasted from another website (even with permission, which Wikipedia can't prove should any legal action be taken) also the article in its previous form wasn't neutral, it wasn't encyclopedic, and big long lists don't improve Wikipedia. Why not create a draft version of the article in your talk space and ask for someone at the Wikipedia Spam patrol to look at your article. AA Milne 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sailboat Producers Articles

In a posting at the Catalina Yachts article you had suggested that that there were POV issues at the article.

I'm also working on an article for Hunter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Marine, and would like to develop an article for other past and present producers. Your feedback early-on would be appreciated and also suggestions for other realted articles.

I've read the materials you referenced regrding obtaining liscense for intelectual properties, and will pursue that course. However, I am a little unclear on how the response to our specifically worded request needs to be worded. Is a simple "I agree" sufficient, or are we looking for specific wording in the response?

Thanks for your help!

Kevin Murray 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MY RD answers you deleted

What was it about them that made you feel you had to delete them?--Light current 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, that wasn't supposed to happen. Looks like I've hit Rollback on the wrong article in my browser. Please accept my humble apologies. AA Milne 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK would you care to try and reinstate the deleted posts? Thanks!--Light current 22:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command. Best wishes AA Milne 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Hi. Your username is inappropriate as per WP:USERNAME as it is a name of a recently deceased person. Please read this official policy carefully and consider changing your username though WP:CHU. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 16:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50 years is recent now ? AA Milne 16:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coheed and Cambria

Hi. Recently you contacted me on my talk page about an edit that I never made. Looking at the edit you reverted, it seems that your VandalProof may have malfunctioned. If my talk page message was automated, then no worries. Otherwise, I wanted to make sure that there were no misunderstandings, and ask that you take more care with your VandalProof in the future, if possible (having never used it myself, I am unsure how it works). JimmyBlackwing 17:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bug that reverts the correct page but warns the wrong user. Please accept my apologies AA Milne 17:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recently happened to me also, I was also left a talk page message about an edit I never made. You may want to look into your tool, it's obviously malfunctioning! :) JubalHarshaw 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bug has been reported, as I'm not the developer and have no access to the source code, there's nothing I can do other than apologise for the error. Please feel free to remove the warning from your talk page (leaving a detailed Edit Summary). AA Milne 20:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Morgan

I've received a message that I vandalized this page. I corrected a some vandalism I saw in it. There may have been something I didn't catch. However I was not the vandal. -- 128.227.137.122 (I should probably sign up with a regular user name and all that, if I continue correcting vandalism and minor errors when I see them.)

IP addresses with no talk are very suspicious in cases of suspected vandalism. I've removed my warning and I apologise, if your intending to stick around, please register and create user and talk pages, that way your much less likely to be considered a vandal or have your work removed. In the mean time, please accept my apologies. AA Milne 23:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'll probably just be doing vandalism and typo cleanup, when I find them, but glad to help. -- Kokopelli Jones

Artwork credits and links

Why did you revert the credits and new artowk links to the FTL Games artwork I created?

Please see the message I left on your talk page. Everything is explained there. AA Milne 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hey, you reverted an edit an edit I never made and left a warning on my talk page! :P I'm assuming it was a bug or something.

I removed the warning from my talk page and moved it to the talk page of the correct user. (Connorpaololuvr).

No biggie. Have a good day. --Ortzinator 20:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]