This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tiggerjay. 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.
Talk: not general discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:EHarmony are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The section in the Disneyland article is supposed to just be a summary of Happiest Homecoming on Earth. I've updated the section with a main tag and a hidden warning to only update the Happiest Homecoming article. I've merged the redundant information that had crept into the Disneyland article. Thanks. --Monotonehell15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input regarding LC. I am not obsessing about this matter, however don't feel like writing it off. Like I have said many times, God did not tell me to do what I did, however Craig Groeschel most certainly did (referring to a sermon I attended when he said he encourages people to critique him and his organization). Have a good one friend!--Shunt1121:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
CSD
Hey, I was just wondering, is there a reason you tagged someone else's talk page for speedy deletion? [1] Just curious... Thanks, Sarah07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, consider it a newbie mistake. My intention was to flag his account in someway (without knowing proper protocol) regarding this user as it appears to have only been used inappropriately since its creation recently. Apparently some other admins noticed it and banned the user for 31 hours. I hope that will resolve the problem. :) Let me know what the procedure should be for future use. Thanks. Tiggerjay05:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
No worries, Tiggerjay. I thought it was probably an error but I wasn't sure and just wanted to check. I'm not really sure what you mean by flagging his account, but if you want to request an account block, you can list it at WP:AIV, or if you are looking for warning templates to put on a user's page, they are listed here. If that doesn't answer your question, feel free to let me know. Cheers, Sarah06:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again Sarah, WP:AIV was what I was thinking about, along with WP:UTM which I have been utilizing. We'll see what the future holds after his current block. :) Tiggerjay06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you added a speedy deletion tag to this article. I have contested it, as the article is about a notable football player and contains sufficient information to rise to at least a 'stub' level. Please review the article, and if you agree, I would appreciate if you removed the speedy delete tag. If you think the article is still lacking content, perhaps a RfD would be appropriate? Best regards. Jogurney05:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
BIGNOLE - I'm not sure to what talk page you are referring to? I have not deleted anything (or at least intentionally). Please advise. Thanks Tiggerjay18:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
At the discussion over the image that Hornet is trying to delete b/c he believes it is child porn. You removed several things from one of my comments, and when I replaced them and requested that you not delete portions of my comments you did it again and also deleted my request that you not do it. BIGNOLE (Contact me)18:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it appears that we are both editing it at the same time and some how it is getting our edits mixed up or something? I have not intentionally deleted anything. :) Sorry. Tiggerjay19:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I go back and look at what was removed, I agree it was an accident. I added a comment but interrupted my own train of thought when I was searching for a link. So my second edit came back and finished, but I think you were commenting at the same time there was probably a conflict that forced mine out. Since the second removal came about a minute after I put it back, chances are that it was the same thing as before. My bad, I should have looked closer at was what was removed and when. BIGNOLE (Contact me)19:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to make sure you didn't undo their reverts as you had previously. Also, since I have your attention, please checkout Philippians_4:13 as it is under discussion by some other editors as to if should have its own page or should simply be incorporated into PhilippiansTiggerjay04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
You've recommended that an image called "cricket resize" that I added to my article on Eric Lloyd Williams be speedily deleted. You say the image has been tagged as unknown for more than seven days. In fact I posted it only two days ago. It's an old family photograph that I want to place in the public domain with no copyright restrictions. Could you please let me know how to do this? Thanks - Rustyproof
Rustyproof, please be aware that your image was deleted because it failed to contain a proper copyright tag. Also note that your other images posted do not have proper copyright or licensing information and may be subject to deletion. Additionally, I only requested that it be deleted because it was not properly tag. But it was the decision of an administration to actually delete the image, not mine. I do not have the ability to delete images. To have your image restored, you will need to re-upload it since once it is deleted by an administrator, it is effectively gone forever. Keep an eye on your talk page because similar notices will be posted here about your images, which will give you an opportunity to resolve the problem(s) before action is taken. The deletion and tagging of your message is not a reflection on your good intentions, but rather to comply with the policies of Wikipedia. To learn more about these policies, you can begin here WP:Images. Tiggerjay05:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Nokia 5300 links
I added a couple of links on the 5300 page to the 5300 reviews of two highly respected (and rival) phone sites, Gsm Arena and Mobile Review.
These sites have been linked to from many other phone pages on Wikipedia, and I cannot find anything in the Wikipedia guidelines which forbid adding these links.
Could you please give a specific reason why these sites should not be linked to, because I cannot find any reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs)
Tiggerjay, I did look at that article, and the guidelines, and I cannot see anything that applies to the links I added. The only way they could be against the rules is if all external links are banned.
Could you please give me a direct reason why those links were removed? A direct reason is not a reference to the rulebook.
Those links are both to photo-heavy pages about the 5300 and contain dozens of high res high quality images of the phone which could not be included directly on Wikipedia for copyright reasons. These are useful links for anyone who wants to find out more about the phone.
The guidelines say links should be useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc. Both of those links were all of those things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.47.250 (talk • contribs)
Excuse me but my contribution on daddy yankee was relevant!!
First, please remember to sign your posts.
Second, the information you posted was disputable and therefore required proper citing or provide source information. Without this information, your posts will continue to be reverted. Please see the information which was left on your talk page. Follow the related links. And in all follow-up posts, please remember to sign them. Tiggerjay05:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Disneyland: The First 50 Magical Years
Thanks for your comments. I plan to take a cue from some of the tags on your User page. Cheers! Ste3ve00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Please put {{subst:welcome}} instead of {{welcome}}. It reduces server load, and the user won't feel like it's a bot message. Thanks -FlubecaTalk03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I object to your comment that my photos of Disneyland were fan-site-ish. How very rude you are. I visited Disneyland during a trip to the United States and took 'holiday' photos — not fansite photos. It would appear that photos, which are taken by a visitor to your country (persumably you are American), are rated by you as being unimportant and trivial. Figaro09:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Figaro - I did not mean to offend you or your pictures. You misunderstand my comments, as the primary reason was the images were outdated, over 20 years old -- for a park which is constantly adding new attractions, the age of these photos reduce the value since they do not provide an accurate representation of the park. Additionally, the photos add little value by themselves in a gallery, and may be more appropriate if placed inline to the sections or in the separate articles related to the images. Since they appear to simply be a collection of someone's personal pictures without much value, is what leads me to suggest that they are more appropriate for a "fan site" instead of an encyclopedic article. Tiggerjay21:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The term Republic of Newfoundland
Dear Tiggerjay; I just posted at my user page, what I think is some important information about a phenomonon that has spread across Newfoundland and given way to many misconceptions. My entry, I feel is important to try and clear up these misconceptions, namely, the term "Republic of Newfoundland" which is a term I invented back in the early 1980s. I seem to have been marked for guick deletion, but I guess I need help.Snuffy Jackson00:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Snuffy, I had marked your user page in error and have revered that request for deletion. You are free to post just about anything on your user page. However, if you create an article in the mainspace, the article will need to meet certain guidelines, including notability. To establish this, you will need provide some reliable, external sources to confirm that your article is of significant value. Please see your talk page for more information. Tiggerjay02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk:New Orleans Square
I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Any particular reasons? There was once information about New Orleans Square on the New Orleans, Louisiana page, so I think it would be relevant enough Staroftheshow8613:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The information in this POV fork is already present in the main article, therefore it serves no purpose
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Criticism of Battle Cry, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Criticism of Battle Cry itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 211:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, please delete. The original intention was to separate this information out from the main article, such as what was done with Windows Vista. However, since the information was reverted back to the main article, it would be a good idea to remove this POV fork. Tiggerjay11:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Initially your edit appeared to be in error, but upon closer looking it wasn't broken, but rather required users to install a special font to read the accessible feature -- which, in a sense, affects is accessibility since adding a font is an administrative feature on a computer and not everybody can add the font to simply view the icon. It appeared to be a step backwards - while possibility a more standard way of presenting the information, it added little and subtracted more. In my opinion. :) Tiggerjay04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So, were you able to install the font successfully?
The discussion about this image has been ongoing for a long time. The copies of the symbol hosted on the Commons are slated for deletion, but it looks like they missed that one. —Remember the dot(talk)04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So, do I have your permission to switch back to the font version for now? There is text alongside it for those unable to view the wheelchair symbol. —Remember the dot(talk)05:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hummm, I'd much rather prefer an image to the font. And it's crazy that they would hold their copyrights instead of releasing to public domain. But that's not a discussion for here, and I assume it has already been fought. I'd say 'go ahead' and got back to the font -- and then keep an eye out to see if anybody else objects or complains. If that happens, then we'll probably want to reconsider the issue, and perhaps move it over to the Project forum. Tiggerjay05:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I just noticed the talk page on the template itself regarding this, at least partially, sorry I didn't read that first. I normally do. Tiggerjay05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. By the way, the main reason the ICTA retains copyright over the symbol is so that people can't use it deceptively (for example, to mark an inaccessible bathroom as accessible). —Remember the dot(talk)05:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like somebody else has a problem with it. Lets figure out the best forum to discuss this further, and/or can you direct us (perhaps on the article talk page) to another existing discussion on this topic. Tiggerjay02:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed today that your help page is up for PROD, see Help:Displaying_the_international_wheelchair_symbol which is something that is critical to this issue. If they help page was to be deleted, then what you are attempting to accomplish with the font would no longer work - another approach would be needed. Tiggerjay11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but even with a very good telephoto lens I couldn't do it from here in the UK. No matter, I'll be back in Kiwiland next year hopefully snapping pictures to go with all the NZ articles I've written. Cheers GrahamBould20:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Have a great time down-under. My wife would love to go back to Oz & NZ sometime soon. We have some friends in both places. :) Tiggerjay15:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
What's up? None of the sources for a person of ancient times will be on reliable sources like Pub-Med. I'm trying hard to identify sites whose words say "scientist" and "engineer" when a fact needed template enters the scene. Oldspammer16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, it appeared that your edits were incorrect or spam/vandalism. It appears that you have reliable enough information. Tiggerjay03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Confusion was initially generated by an IP user who thought that the article was about a "Russian painter" whose first and middle names were completely different.
He or she needlessly erased that G.L. was an engineer--put in a fact template there, made G.L. into a painter, and changed the date of birth to be exactly a particular day of the month and month of the year as well as saying that G.L. was born in Minsk. So the conflict was with some IP idiot who did not read the article much at all, then began to edit the thing claiming that it was a POV that G.L. was involved at all with electronics or inventing anything! Oldspammer12:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it looked like the revert script rolled back too far. If you take a look at [3] you will see the edit that I was concerned with. It appeared that you were adding in information with simple a placeholder for a reference. However, upon closer review I can see that it was proper, just with an obscure ref name. In regards to you other comments, both here and below. It is not difficult to simply revert the edits I had made back to your original edits and then contact me. Additionally, if you are having edit war problems, you should seek assistance from an administrator. They can place a protection on the page from new/IP users from editing content, when appropriate. I would also suggest that you use the edit summary so that you can inform other editors of the changes you are making, especially when you are removing (what appears to be valid) information. Tiggerjay15:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, to clarify things:
The data limit IS 50 megabytes. What school would impose a limit of 5 MB per SEMESTER on students for research? Common sense should be enough to prove it is 50 megabytes a semester, not 5.
I cannot cite this, because the only place it is mentioned is on our school intranet, which requires a login which I'm not prepared to disclose. If you have an alternate method, let me know. In the meantime, I've removed the offending line completely.
Regarding intrAnet and intErnet, I don't see any continual reverting going on. I'll clarify it a little, there is a difference though.Internaldesign00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and also, some of the review headlines are outdated. The infobox is there, I've already added some more information - is there anything else that we need to get this up to GA standard at least? (aside from citations, which I don't have much time for, but will come in due course).Internaldesign01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me review this on Monday and get back to you on this. We are busy preparing for our son's 1st birthday party this weekend. Tiggerjay11:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No rush for the guidelines. I don't have time to update it further, I have high school to consider. But, I'll ensure it gets to GA at least for the time being, when I have time to do so. With regards to your removal of our involvements part, it is useful information. I am guessing that it will be labeled "stub" without it, so I'm not sure it's worthy of removal. Regardless, I will not put it back, because it will most likely be reverted back again.Internaldesign08:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As you may notice, over the weekend I made some bold edits, removing some information and rewording others. I think this will help the article as it is currently bloated. I will take some time this week and review it further for you. You're on my Helping Others list now. :) Also, if you can please keep an eye out for my edits as my Australian English is really a second language since I am American born an raised. Tiggerjay15:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, you are correct, it was a incorrect revert - reviewing the page to quickly on a RC Patrol. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tiggerjay06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhpas it would be best to completely review the edit history, check the exact outcome of the edits done, then verify the information added before needlessly reverting someone else's good work. If extensive editing has been done in different sections of the article(s) at different times, it can be more tricky to undo your reverts.
Please be much more careful in future, and maybe discuss it on the talk page for the article or the editing user's talk page, and assume good rather than bad faith. Maybe instead of undoing things, you could be more helpful by adding text to the articles, and citation references where needed by doing some Google search / research and help out rather than hinder the work of others?
Lately it has been bad weather around where I live. Several times the power has failed in the middle of me writing an article edit. So rather than losing my work altogether, I sometimes save an intermediate edit, then continue editing. If the power DOES FAIL, then I can at least recover SOME of my efforts--even if the article does not look 100% during an intermediate save. Keep this in mind, and wait until someone is completely done their edits before you do "a revert" on them in the middle of them editing. That is exactly what happened to me when you intervened on the G.L. article above.
The most valuable commodity is time. Disk space is cheap.
A Wiki reader upon being inspired by an article might be in the position of verifying a great scientific discovery. But if mention of "that" in an article is needlessly deleted "by a contributor," then the inspirational trigger is gone! The world could have lost an important scientific step forward by not having inspired the "right person."
Many people have been turned off Wiki P recently because of quibbling over WP guidelines / policies and enormous wasting of time by "WP lawyers" and so called sock puppets calling for articles being deleted. I hope that you do not aspire to becoming one of these people. Oldspammer12:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oldspammer, please take a cue from this editor who simply reverted what appeared to be an error in removing vandalism. It appears that you may be holding bad faith in my reverts in an attempt to remove the significant vandalism that takes place on Wikipedia. While you may believe that the good content is important, I would suggest that if the articles contained too much blatant vandalism, that it would not be used even if it held great scientific value. As such, RC Patrol is very important. As a result, sometimes innocent edits get reverted. However, like this edit, he simply reverted by revert. It took only a second and then a quick note on my talk page. In this case, it appeared that I accidentally reverted his page, when there was no evidence or even suggestion or suspcisious activity, probably a slip of the mouse-stroke. Tiggerjay15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Some people actually appreciate people reverting vandalism, especially when it impacts their own user page Thank you 1 & Thank you 2. As well as 100s of actual vandal reverts and assisting admins in blocking several of them, recently including: Abuse 1, 23, and 4. As well as working with edit wars: War 1, 2, and 3. May I suggest that you may be a little off base with your comments. As some of the pages you have contributed to have been the subject of spam/vandals which was quickly reverted (correctly), such as: Geopathic theory, Electromagnetic therapy, Royal Rife, and Blood electrification - all of which benefited from the removal of incorrect information. Bad information is more damaging then no information :) Tiggerjay16:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi, just thought I should thank you for fixing my user page, and one of the other pages I've been working on, great job :) JohnnyZen10:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Jeeny, please be aware that from a cursory overview it appeared that you were changing the content (or the implication of new information) without providing a new source of reference. As you already reverted the revert, then there is no further action needed. Tiggerjay22:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If you had looked at that source, you would have seen that my addition, in fact, clarified the prior addition of a small bit of information taken out of context. Please don't be so quick to revert without further investigation, unless it is obvious vandalism. Thanks. - JeenyTalk22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
PS, just so you know, that page receives a lot of additions that are out of context, and used like a gossip page. I understand it's a "reality show" but still, this is an encylopedia, as you know. I just didn't understand why you would reverted me over an IP number, without checking my contributions and see that I've made many additions to that page. In fact, I made that edit AFTER looking at the reference. Cheers. All's well. :) - JeenyTalk22:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Thanks for your note on my talk page. It looks like you have already deleted the sub-page which I created. There might be couple of sentences which might not meet your standards. I will be happy to take out OR repharse them but for that it would be great to know which ones I have to rework. I was about to put 'hangon' statement but your speed of deletion was quick. I will be happy if you could guide my work. Thanks again ... Dhoom407:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're on my to-do list for this week. I had a very busy weekend with the 4th of July celebration and my son's first birthday. You've made it onto my [User:Tiggerjay#My_helping_others_to-do_list|Helping Others] list. I should have some more edits for you soon, either directly on the sandbox page or via discussion input. :) Tiggerjay15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've just completed some updates to this for style and POV. While I did rewrite some material, I deleted even more. Unfortunately, the corporate website does not provide enough of the type of information needed to finish up this article. Here are a couple things moving forward:
Don't worry about adding the colayer logo until the page itself is appropriate for inclusion into the mainspace. It will continue to be deleted, so don't worry about that until the article is ready.
There are a few things which need clarification, such as:
Framework & platform appear to be used interchangeable, if there is no difference, you should stick with one. If there is a difference, you may want to clarify
What is the relationship between Colayer and Metalayer, it appears as if Colayer acquired (or stole) the technology from Metalayer
The Colayer platform has been deted as an article, start by placing the content here. When this article becomes notable enough, and the content of the platform substantial enough, they can be split into two separate articles WP:MERGE.
The link/ref needs to be fixed as follows:
There is no need for excessive self-reference, this does not making things notable. Additionally, you should reference only things which may be disputable or where someone would want to find out more information.
Generally your ref should not be to the homepage/top page of a website, it should be to a specific article, page, etc.
There is no need to ref to someone else doing the same thing as you. If the concept is notable enough, such as virtual conferencing, then you should reference it to a WP article.
I didn't test that before ask you. Now I tested that and yes it is possible create a Template anywhere (sandbox, User:, Category:) in Wikipedia but articles. For example User:ClaudioMB/Test. From now on, I will test everything in my page. But, did you realize you tag Template:Fb si footer to speed deletion in less than 1 minute the template was created? Please, next time, give more time for people fix something they just created. Thanks.--ClaudioMB16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are able to create templates and they do work, however policy (I'd need to look it up) that you do not have mainpage articles (ie not sandbox) which link to templates within your userspace. It is technically possible but not permissible. Regarding your comment about speedy deletion, the intention is to speedily remove bad content, because bad information is worse then no information. However, each individuals safe guard is that a regular editor, such as me, must have their request followed through by an administrator who is supposed to take more time in reviewing before deleting. I hope that helps clear things up for you. :) Tiggerjay03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand your intention of clean Wikipedia. But, you should be more careful before ask an article or template to be speedy deleted. Give at least couple hours after something been created before consider it as garbage. Thanks.--ClaudioMB17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As I posted on your talk page, and as you can see your other templates have been called into question by other editors. If these templates are only going to be used on a single page, then they should simply be included inline, instead of referencing a template. The purpose of them templates are to be used on multiple pages/articles. Tiggerjay21:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You said: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Ratatouille (film). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiggerjay 07:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"
If you look at the Metacritic link, you will see that Ratatouille was INDEED the 13th highest rated movie, NOT the sixth (which I corrected). Before labeling my edits as vandalism, why don't you actually check to see the validity of them first? Chaweb07:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You changed a couple of sentence involving HIV. By definition HIV = human immunodeficiency virus. Animals cannot get this virus. Only certain animals have anything remotely related to this. HIV is a very specifically targeted human virus. OldSpammer
The HIV issue probably has to do with the fact that they test with lab animals for treatments before in humans. They are probably trying to express that it hasn't been proven in animals, little alone humans.
"...claimed that Robert Beck was persecuted..." appears to be about Beck
"Beck believed many odd things..." again, appears to be about Beck -- no mention of B/E
"germ warfare virus research resulted in the development of HIV AIDS" appears to be about HIV and/or Beck -- no mention of B/E
"Bob thought that the 1990" this would appear to be an appropraite place, however this is not the correct TONE and should be re-written.
Also, you do not need to extensively defend your edits on my talk page. If you disagree, you can always exercise your ability to revert or roll back my edits to your latest version. However, please read [[WP:RRR]. Also, while you appear very well intentioned, and your articles contain a lot of interesting information, you need to ensure that you are following the policy of WP as a majority of your articles do not carry the correct STYLE or TONE for a WP article. Also, you appear to need to learn more about OR since your edits appear to be OR. Review these, you will probably find that your edit are more acceptable and reverted less. Tiggerjay16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please simply refer to WP:BRD regarding on how I, along with others edit pages. There is no need for a lengthy discussion over each edit performed on the related pages. The process is based upon someone editing boldly (which may include removing content) and then you having the option to revert (or roll back the article to pre-deletion state). At that point, if there is still a problem, a discussion can take place. There is no need to go point-by-point except on specific parts which are constantly being deleted and then reverted. Also, please see your talk page about some other suggestions, such as avoiding the appearance of WP:OR and WP:OWN. Have a great day. 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Electromagnetic therapy talk page
You have made a mistake. Please review the following information:
I know that I could not have said this unsigned item because I do not think that it is completely true, nor have I made efforts to check the alleged fact entered by this IP user.
I would be happy to make the change, but can you please tell me why you simply didn't make the correction yourself? Tiggerjay00:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Baptist
Hi, I got a message from you about the Baptist page suggesting I had vandalized it. I was reading the page and saw some obvious vandalism, so I reverted those changes, as the history clearly indicates. That was, in fact, my first contribution to wikipedia, so if I made some mistake in reverting the vandalism, I am certainly willing to learn. And if Twinkle automatically generates these slightly nasty messages, I assume people get use to them. But it is a bit discouraging to revert vandalism and them have someone come along and scold you for vandalism. 71.235.234.3805:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, actually I did not tag or revert your entry to Baptist, but rather informed you of an edit made by another editor User:Afaprof01. If you have questions, you can inquire of him. However, on behalf of Wikipedia, Welcome!!! Tiggerjay06:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
re: Britney Spears discography: Album Sales
I'm well aware that this article has been vandalised many times and I have contributed already to the discussion on the Talk Page. Thanks. - eo11:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why you have deleted my comment off of User: Kprideboi's talk page. please explain your action. Also be aware, that I have reverted your edit. Odst01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove comments from talk pages as you did here here. I'd be interested to know why you did it, but please note that it is only acceptable to remove comments in the case of vandalism. You need to explain yourself and I am waiting for your reply. thanks Rossrs01:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears that I reverted your comments in error, I see no problem with them. It must have been a mis-click on my part using User:Lupin/Filter_recent_changes. I see you already reverted by revert, so there is no further action needed. In the future, it may be helpful to assume good faith instead of take offense and then demand an explanation. Tiggerjay01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
True, I did jump the gun in taking offense and I apologise for my tone. I've found a number of editors reverting acceptable edits without explanation recently and it frustrates me. Without checking your other edits, I assumed you were another one. I usually do assume good faith, but the bottom line is that it was your mistake, although your reply seems to place most emphasis on my lack of good faith. An "ooops, my mistake, sorry about that" would have been a more appropriate response. If I had not detected the incorrect revert, would you have noticed your mistake? That's my main concern - is it possible that information is being removed incorrectly and not detected or are you actually looking at your reversions as they go through? Rossrs01:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, good point. Totally my error. One fault that I've seen with the rollback method I use (Lupin) is that it only shows me the most recent edit, but it will rollback all edits by the "offending" editor which were done sequentially. That is, I may see an error with your most recent edit, and what to roll back that single edit, without realizing that you've made 2+ edits in a row. The tool will roll all of them back, of which, the earlier edits may have been acceptable. I have notified the tool author and will be more careful. Have a great evening. Tiggerjay01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I can see that is a problem, and I understand that when you're reverting so many instances of direct vandalism - work that I absolutely support BTW - there are likely to be mistakes. I made two edits to that talk page so maybe there was something in the second one that triggered a response. I was even wondering if my writing "WOW" in capital letters triggered something. I'm just guessing here, but a lot of vandalism involves shouting and using capital letters, so maybe the tool picks up things like that. Very interesting. Again, I apologise for the rudeness of my first message to you, which was undeserved. I guess whatever bugs are in the tool, are fixable, and I'm glad you've notified the author. Enjoy your weekend. Rossrs02:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, (s)he was very methodical. They'd have to be a very dedicated vandal to go through the whole list like they were doing (of course, that may be the case). Hopefully they used some of their free time in the past 31 hours to check their talk page :P. Danelo02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
User page silliness
Thanks for the reversion. I had a look at this user's "contributions" and the most significant among the short list was this one. I don't think this kind of user is redeemable or should be editing sprotected articles, and so after careful consideration I gave him the boot. -- Hoary07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, just serving a little late night RC Patrol. Looks like he should be blocked. :) Have a great day! Tiggerjay08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No kidding
One of the stranger vandals I've come across (especially with buddies/puppets coming to his/her aid). Guess we'll see if they had enough in 24 hours. Have a good one! CiTrusD02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in my answer I included a link to my test page User:ClaudioMB/Test. And I need my test page to work. I shouldn't have make that link. So, what I was trying to demonstrated at that moment is gone, because I alter my test page. --ClaudioMB22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the 3 reverts have been over a period of longer than 24 hours, and I submitted a request for page protection since this user cannot figure out how to provide a proper source for this bit of criticism and since he is using a different IP each time without reading or responding to the requests for clarification on his talk page. See the protection request at: RPP for eHarmony. Going forward, until I can see an appropriate source or tie-in for this, I will continue to revert this information. Simply stating that the Whois record says eHarmony is inconclusive since anyone can register anything under anyones name. If a company like eHarmony was to register these domains, it would be highly likely that they would have registered these other domains in a similar method to their eHarmony.com domain, and likely with the same registrar, which these other two domain names are not. Without a credible source, it appears to be WP:OR. Tiggerjay20:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You wanted a credible source? Well go here Godaddy Registration Info and enter the verification code. You will see eHarmony's full registration for this domain. So, how about you back of and let the truth be known, alright?
Thanks, I just noticed it. I hope this gets his attention and listen to the take pages and contribute in a productive way, which he/she appears to be able to do, but has spent more time spamming about (their own) website. Thank again! Tiggerjay05:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooops, I just copied this message to a few admins that I've interacted with. I neglected to change the name from Alison to Daniel... Oooops, you caught me in the act of cut/pasting. :) If you could review the message/page, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Tiggerjay23:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, just letting you know I replied on your subpage. Sorry for the delay replying but I haven't been on WP for a couple of days and just got your request today. Cheers, Sarah14:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks! !!!
External Links on Animation page
Hi Tiggerjay, thanks for your message. I've submitted the link I added to the Animation article (the NFB's Focus on Animation site) for discussion on the Animation 'Talk' page. Upon reading the guidelines for adding External Links I feel that I was in compliance, as this site will undoubtedly enrich the knowledge about animation that is imparted in this Wikipedia article; it's most certainly not just a gratuitous link. If you care to, please do join the discussion I've started on the Talk page there! Canadian Rockies20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Garlock Sealing Technologies
Hi Tiggerjay, can you please see if I uploaded the logo correctly. I have tried to do this before and I keep messing it up. I would really appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees2323 (talk • contribs) 20:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
What problem are you having with the upload? It is a copyprotected images so I cannot upload it and provide the proper license release required in order for it to be used on WP. Presumably, you have the rights to do so. Tiggerjay
EHarmony Criticism
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article EHarmony Criticism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Tiggerjay16:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
AAMI Stadium
Tbh I felt like you were removing too much from the article - maybe you could add to the articles talk page first? Otherwise, if you feel that strongly, go ahead and just re-edit it :-) Muzzamo00:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit pointing out about the gay plot line in Icberg? I could understand if your rewrote it but to have just a noticeable feature of the book not mentioned in the article at all is weird. Its a plot line that both dates the book and the age it was written. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.5.197 (talk • contribs)
I reverted your entry because it does not conform to the wikipedia Manual of Style. Your edit beginning with "The novel is so sexist and homophobic " appears to be Original Research / Personal Analysis. Your edits will be reverted and please lookup these links and then feel free to recontribute within these guidelines. Thanks Tiggerjay05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. I've had to tell someone else this, so don't feel bad, but be careful not to add the Bible college category to liberal arts colleges. Bible colleges are different from liberal arts colleges and seminaries. Aepoutre14:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, you are correct. I noticed somebody else added this category to another local Christian university and figured that it would apply to Simpson, but I acted to quickly. Tiggerjay00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If it is irrelevant, why don't you just remove the whole trivia section, instead of just two of the entries? --GSK16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
My reverts to your edits does not necessarily indicate my acceptance or approval of the other entries. While I was reviewing recent changes, I noticed your edits which appear to be simply trivia. I know that some of the other trivia points could/should be integrated into the reset of the article. There are probably others which should also be deleted. Tiggerjay17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rideandshow logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, ooops, it appears that Lupin's RC Filter made a mistake during the revert because I intended to revert the same thing it added back in under my name. No hard feelings, it wasn't my intent to roll back your edit. Tiggerjay06:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize that after the fact. Sorry about the warn but since you reverted the vandalism back in, and since I move fast on the Twinkle, well, ya know... -- ALLSTARECHO06:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. PGPirate04:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the promotional image of the lava room to the article for the Indiana Jones Ride,for which you were kind enough to fix the copyright info. Unfortunately, it is scheduled to be removed tomorrow. I’m not very experienced with the workings of such things, and would appreciate any help you can provide in keeping the image up. Xargon666x620:32, 07 October 2007 (UTC)
Let me see what I can do, it's about to expire, so it may be too late, I wish I knew about this a little sooner. :) Tiggerjay00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you're all set, it was not retagged, and I think the copyright gods are now happier. :) Have a great week! Tiggerjay00:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
disney largest corporation
I was wrong disney was not the third it was the second. here is a source from forbes[[4]]forbesRamgar11 0ctober,12, 2007 10:38
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rideandshow logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Rideandshow logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wheelchair_symbol_mailto_02.svg){kind=link}
