User talk:Seb az86556/archive22

re: Tune it down

I appreicate your concern, one is a little peeved after every attempt to make some constructive edits to articles are simply reverted because i am not an established member. When you correct someones typos, or mistakes, and they revert you are wrong ... and they keep doing it: it is a little annoying. Hoep you can understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.192.142 (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this livens up your day

Hello Seb az86556, SwisterTwister has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

SwisterTwister (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thx Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it if you stop getting involved

Did I ask you to get involved? This is none of your concern.

Swe41 (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a) it is of my concern. b) stop that shit Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it your concern?? were you involved in our conversation? no you were not. Therefore, nothing you say is of any relevance, so stop, or I'll just fill another abuse report for harassment against you. Regards xx Swe41 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ

SockPuppet investigations/Seb_az86556

Just to inform you, I have started a Sockpuppet investigations against you -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Seb_az86556#03_April_2011

You can appeal if you wish to do so.

Kind regards,

Swe41 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)+[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Seb_az86556

Sorry for the inconvenience Swe41 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castaneda band deletation

Hello! I am writting you about the page Castaneda (band) deletation. I am sorry but I must desagree with the first reason for deletation. There are two main sources - the band's official pages on facebook and myspace - and some references for the expletory informations. Well I know that wikipedia does not like sources like myspace or facebook so I deleted the facebook link and added another source from another music page. The second reason - yes this band is not as famous or popular as others, but the Wikipedia:N says that notability does not depend on fame and popularity. There are two independent sources and one disputable source (facebook source). Thanks in advance for your reply. --Mates245 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not totally certain, that's why I did not request speedy deletion. If you can find other sources, that would be great. I'll keep watching the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a Abuse report against you

Case now open: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swe41 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your valiant effort. I really appreciate it. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would have been nicer to meet under better circumstances :) I have re-assessed the article as a B class however it does still require some expanding but thats nothing major. Cheers ZooPro 02:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will let you know what I think it needs for a GA assessment shortly, I just have some WikiProject maintenance issues to deal with first. Cheers ZooPro 13:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You represent

The best kind of an editor this place has to offer. Thank you again. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit too kind. In any case, you're welcome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter of my evaluation above, although optimistic at first glance, was based on the risk you took by helping a fellow-editor despite the obvious signs of trouble. Not too many ordinary editors (non-admins) would bother going through the personal risk and predictable hassle for the sake of community service. But you did. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chee Dodge

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Known from

Well, I am no native speaker, but I think it is okay.. If I search for "known from" on google I get 5 million hits. Furthermore, I have seen it being used by other people. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no bot involved. I could change it to "is found in". I try to avoid "native to" because it might also be an introduced species, in which case "native" would be misleading. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it is okay, if I search for "known from Europe" on google I get a lot of scientific articles about species. For instance: "The genus Myrmecina is known from Europe", "The species indicated by an asterisk are known from Europe", "Actidium baccarinii is known from Europe", etc. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisi Binare

I think the editor is in the process of translating it for another wikipedia (I don't recognize the language). Perhaps we should offer to move the article to his userspace for now? --NellieBly (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Albanian. I gave him the link to sq: Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American University Rationalists and Atheists

Could you give me a few minutes on this article? The group is relevant, it is one of the top student secular organizations in the nation. I can understand if you are doubtful, but I'm trying to organize a page that establishes its relevancy. --Thetruthbelow (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I'm a bit busy tonight but i'll be adding to it in the new couple of days. --Thetruthbelow (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, i'll userfy it. There's not a snowball in hell for this to survive. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
>>> User:Thetruthbelow/American University Rationalists and Atheists
Heh, thanks. First time back editing in years --Thetruthbelow (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jumped the gun

Talk:Ohio/FAQ is actually in use. only Ohio/FAQ was vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's been restored now. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 02:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of convicted Australian criminals

Thanks for pointing that out. I searched for articles starting with "List of convicted" and did not get any more results. Didn't know the articles were named differently. --Conti|✉ 13:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DREAM Act

When I changed the article in March 2011, I removed portions, which did not have sources. Many of them directed to the table of contents of some congress document. I don't think that is right way. Do you expect readers to search the exact portion from there? The other sentence was from the law firm who has illegal immigrant customers. I think that is not good.

You look like dedicating on the DREAM Act section. I thank for that but I want to know your editing standard. Why do you keep only the supporting information on the section? Your editing on the SB1070 is the opposite way. Don't you think it is bias? I wonder you are just supporting illegal immigration. I think regardless the view, the article on wikipedia should deliver only fact and may be both opinions.Woonhocho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It's a good sign when one is accused of both "supporting illegal immigration" by some, and being "a racist Mexican hater" or some such by others. I must be doing something right. However that may be, you haven't engaged in any discussion even once. Go to the relevant talkpages and discuss vast changes as I advised in the edit summary I gave. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]