User talk:Wikipelli/Archive 10

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Augustus Lutheran Church

Vandals on this page are making me crazy. I can't keep up, there's too many of them  FrostedΔ14  14:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing that. I requested page protection for that page. Wikipelli Talk 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

User:67.174.73.7

Earlier this month, you left final warning on this user's userpage as a consequence of vandalism. The vandalism has since continued, see Eucharist and Church of God (Holiness) for major blanking. I have not checked all the small edits but several consist of changing a word, at times in a link, which completely alters the sense while appearing to be a copy edit. Could you please take the necessary action? Thanks for all you do to keep Wikipedia clean! Jpacobb (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, it was about an hour ago that I left the last warning and, strictly speaking, the editor has not vandalized since then. As the warnings/actions are generally applied, I really can't go back to earlier edits (before the final warning) and count those against the editor. I will watch to see if there is more vandalism today and will happily report them if it continues. Wikipelli Talk 16:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Mata Amritanandamayi

Hello. I hope this finds you well. You helped remove some vandalism on the Mata Amritanandamayi (Amma) page about a year ago, and we had a brief exchange after that. You mentioned coming to you if I needed help. My understanding of Wiki is limited, at best. I mainly try to make sure that Amma's page remain clean and tidy and adhere's to basic BLP guidelines. Unfortunately some people are trying to post various topics in the Controversy section that seem inappropriate to me. I have removed two that I feel are inappropriate, but expect they will be back soon. Amma's organization is an internationally respected, UN-member charitable organization. One wiki person is trying to put as a controversy something about a request for financial inquiry. Apparently this appeared as an editorial in a magazine by a writer. It seems to me that this is A) not a valid reference source and B) inappropriate because it would be a crime, no one has ever legally charged Amma or her ahsram with this. The other one I just deleted is due to a recent incident, wherein someone attacked Amma and was arrested. The person then died in prison due to beating. I also dont see how this has any connection with Amma. If you could help watch the page, and perhaps remove anything from the controvery section that seems in appropriate to you, I would appreciate it. LanceMurdock999 10:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talk • contribs)

In fact, within two minutes, a bunch of IP-only people have put these back in. They really are just trying to attack Amma by posting this stuff. While it is true a person attacked Amma, the beating of that person in prison should not be relevant on Amma's page. Please help me deal with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


I looked at the page and tried to sort out the edits over the morning. It appears to me that one editor (IP) has been blocked for including copyrighted material and the edits are undone. What remains is fairly poorly written but good faith addition and referenced (though I can't seem to get to http://www.hindu.com and one is self-published). I'll put it on my watchlist. I would encourage the other editors to use the article's talk page to discuss rather than edit-war. Good luck! Wikipelli Talk 18:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I agree discussions are better, but most of these are made by people with an axe to grind who come on via IP. My doubt is this: Other than the strike, do any of these "controversies" belong on a BLP according to Wiki guidelines? For example, the death of the attacker in prison has no connection with Amma or her organization. It is an issue of controversy for the Kerala Police and Kerala State Mental Hospital. It has been put on Amma's page to vaguely imply that somehow Amma's organization was behind the death in prison. Even the book against Amma is basically a self-published book that accuses Amma/MAM with a bunch of unfounded felonies. In 30 years no one has ever taken these accusations seriously and no one has ever placed charges against Amma/MAM for these. IN BLP guidelines it says: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[6] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information." Does that apply here? Again, thanks for all your help and suggestions, and I definitely appreciate your willingness to monitor the page.

LanceMurdock999 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanceMurdock999 (talk • contribs)

Have you been able to monitor the page? I made what I believe to be some constructive changes, and also left a full explanation of why I believe all of the "controversies" should be removed from the section. Then someone--perhaps overzelous--deleted the entire section. It was immediately put back, including very ridiculous accusations of money fraud cited from an editorial in a small press anti-religious magazine. Were you able to look at my comments in the Talk Section on Amritanandamayi's page? Can you please offer some more guidance? I dont want to get into just a deletion war. LanceMurdock999 05:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Windows refund controversies

Regarding neutrality and controversies around the Windows refund article (and my last edit) I opened discussion on the corresponding talk page. -- Bahaltener (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

Re: Username

Hi,

Thank you for your input and feedback. I would like to point out that that my username is in no way promotional as I have never made a change to the actual wiki page for Mount Auburn Cemetery- it purely reflects who I work for. Any other representation of who I am and where I am getting my information from, would in my mind, not be forthcoming. In regards to the username itself, I do not make changes to Wikipedia articles in my personal time and therefor will not make this a "personal" account, nor will I disclose who I am as that provides more information to the public than I am willing to share. I work in the Visitor Services department at the Cemetery, and while this account is not shared by others, it would be professionally inappropriate for me to link this account to one that appears to be "personal" as I am not adding citation on my "personal" time. The purpose of adding the information that I have, was purely to add more data to Wiki articles that lacked or contained inappropriate data that our archives have the ability to provide. If you find this to offend Wikipedia's policies, then so be it. Remove any changes that have been made under this account.

Thank you again for your concern, Mount Auburn Cemetery 02:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Mount Auburn Cemetery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mount Auburn Cemetery (talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

9/11.

There were survivors. Zero is an unfair and incorrect designation. How many people didn't show up for work that day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.168.69 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You're editing articles about airline flights from which there were no survivors. The events on the ground are a separate topic. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
From a purely editing standpoint, I didn't understand how "did not hit the intended target" was appropriate in the field for survivors. Yes, the people at the intended target survived, but so did all the people that lived when the plane didn't crash earlier. I think the point of that field (survivors) is to indicate the number of passengers who survived the crash. Wikipelli Talk 17:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Matthew O'Connor

The reason why I edited Matthew O'Connor's page was because it was completely fictious with no links to subject. I will try and find links about the Soccer player. Thanks

Ray30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray30 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem finding and adding links but please don't delete the article while you're working. :) Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 13:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed! Mephistophelian (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC).
Thanks! I didn't like the blanking but the more I looked into the history, the more I could see that it had been terribly messed up. Go to it, Ray30!  :) Wikipelli Talk 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

Hello...

DIRECTED TO: Wikipelli

Re Rego School Shanghai

Whilst I was editing the article last night, I received a message that someone else was editing it at the same time.

What I wrote was changed/deleted.

There is a person previously employed by the school who is maliciously circulating rumours and potentially libelous information in the article.

You also made a comment about advertising or reference to web sites: I did not include any websites in my changes.

I am employed by Rego as their Marketing Manager and authorised by the owners to reflect the current situation.

I would like to replace the article so that the information is correct.

Please advise.

Thanks for your help and often thankless work.

Kind regards,

Norm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussie Rover (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Norm... I looked again at the article and found a couple of things. First, I reverted your changes because they appeared to be page blanking/content removal. I understand that you are in the process of rewriting/updating but it's probably a better idea just to edit rather than remove everything and start over. You can also work on the article in your 'sandbox', which, while public, is not part of the encyclopedia and no-one else should edit there. Then, the new article can be copy/pasted over the old. NOTE: I strongly urge you to use the article's Talk page to let other editors know of your activities and purposes. As I'm sure you're aware, there is no 'ownership' of Wikipedia articles and everyone may edit.
I couldn't find any advertising links that you added to the article but I will say that there were some words included that are opinion rather than fact (for example: The facilities provided by the school are excellent ). Words such as 'excellent' are opinion and shouldn't be included.
As for the additions concerning the controversies, unfortunately, even though you might not want mention of controversies mentioned, they are arguably appropriate for the article about the school. The information about visas, etc. does have references to support the information and, thus, should stay. This, too, is something that can be discussed on the article's talk page. I notice that the information cited is from several months ago (January 2012). If there is more recent information that the controversies have been dealt with, that should be included as well - with proper references!
Finally, you mention that you are the marketing manager for the school. This indicates that you have a conflict of interest when editing the article. This doesn't mean that you are prevented from editing the article, but you must understand that it is very difficult to edit/write with a neutral point of view (and that's how words like excellent show up in the copy!). Again, you can edit but I suggest you make known your position with the school on the article's talk page.
I hope this is helpful. If I can help any further, please let me know! Wikipelli Talk 14:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Wikipelli. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

Jim'll Fix It

Sorry - my friend started typing some rude stuff. Sorry :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDataMonster (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hunted

Hi, Here is the link for Hunted. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a432502/melissa-george-talks-hunted-series-two-plans-its-set-in-berlin.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.30.51 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Terrific.... I can't say for sure that the source is reliable, but feel free to use that to reference the information you wish to add to the article. :) If you need any help, feel free to let me know. Wikipelli Talk 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

Changing of pages

Hello, I have recently been reading my Talk Page, and saw my messages that I have changed many pages. I don´t recall going on those pages in the past. I have no account, but I use the ip. If you could tell me what I changed that would be great. Its a school computer and its used by 5 people including me. Send a message on my talk page with the things that I changed on that page. Thanks! -Guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.49.158 (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If you read through the warnings on the page, you will see that each one contains a link to an edit that has been reverted. In a school it often happens that you will see messages on the talk page about things that another editor has done on the same IP address. I encourage you to create an account and thn you won't have to worry about it.Wikipelli Talk 19:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Amir Abbas Fakhravar

Dear Wikipelli you deleted some information from Amir Abbas Fakhravar wikipedia page information which was a mistake. These information was accurate and has many facts and was deleted as vandalism attack before. Can you help me to protect that page? Siavash777 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I deleted the information that you added. I was actually reverting the changes on the basis of a misspelling in one of the section headings that appeared to me to be vandalism. I see that you have restored the changes that you made and I have corrected the misspelling. It doesn't appear to me as though the level of changes warrants page protection, but I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador program

I was looking at your user page and thought you'd be a good candidate for the Wikipedia:Ambassadors program. You might want to check it out if you don't know it already. -- kosboot (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought about it. I'll check it out, thanks! Wikipelli Talk 13:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Message

Hello, I refer to your message (14:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)) stating an update was made, appearing to be by me, to do with the Royal Court Theater. I don't recognize this subject or page and have had messages from other editors before, asking me to rectify changes that I haven't made. Could there be an IP related issue here? I've looked at the updates you refer to and I can confirm that I did not make them. They are not on my contributions page either. Thank you Thedaveformula (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
hello

I try to revert, i am new in wiki can you help me how to revert.Thank you REÇ (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


Hello! I noticed that you completely erased (blanked) a page recently. This is why I reverted your edit. You should never erase content on Wikipedia without explanation. If you feel that the information is incorrect, you can explain your concerns on the article's talk page. In this way, other editors can offer their opinions as well.
It's great that you are interested in Wikipedia and I hope that you continue to help with the project. If you are new, I would strongly recommend watching and learning about how the project works before you start to revert. There are a number of resources such as, wp:Tutorial that can help you get started. Let me know if I can be of any help to you. Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

commons category

I tried browsing to Media related to Association footballs at Wikimedia Commons as well as to Media related to Association football balls at Wikimedia Commons. For me the former link does not lead to a category on commons, whereas the latter link does lead to a category on commons. I hope that explains the edit made to the article. 12.208.10.7 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. Your edit was in good faith. I've restored your edit and removed the warning from your talk page. Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 00:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

WTF?

I was merely correcting a typo at the reference desk by changing 'possiblt' to 'possible' and then went to the 'View History' page to check out my edit, which then prompted me to take a quick look at the IP address's edit history on Wikipedia and its own Talk Page, loaded with criticisms and bannings from earlier edits prior to Summer 2012. My second edit was the semi-deletion of the Talk Page, but apparently, someone found that or the other one 'unconstructive'. Actually, it seems to me that all mass deletions or deletions of whole paragraphs are perceived to be 'unconstructive' or suspect to 'unconstructive edits' on Wikipedia, based on my experience. 140.254.226.197 (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi... The revert and warning that I placed on your page were prompted by your removal of the 'criticisms and bannings from earlier edits' from the talk page [1]. I don't really understand why you would remove content from a talk page other than your own. In any event, it's inappropriate to remove others' comments from a talk page.
It's often difficult to edit in a public or school library without logging in because the IP addresses might be blocked. I believe that you are editing in good faith and I would encourage you to get an account with Wikipedia! Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 15:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Another method is to archive the whole Talk Page and place it under __________'s Old Talk Page. 140.254.226.197 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

IP address range vandalism

Hi Wikipelli! I've been seeing you patrolling for vandalism using Huggle. I would like to suggest that you take note of the IP range warnings given by Huggle. Some of your reversions could have been done better, as multiple edits were made by different IP addresses but on the same IP range, meaning they share for example, the first two sets of digits: 111.222.XXX.XXX. This could suggest that the edits were done on shared IPs by the same person. Huggle produces this warning whenever it detects edits over an IP address range as Huggle will only revert edits made on the same IP address, not edits over a range. If you need examples, do feel free to approach me. Happy patrolling! Optakeover(Talk) 14:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Optakeover... Thanks for the heads-up. I'm familiar with Huggle's warnings and I generally take note of them and, rather than revert to another edit within the same range, I open the page to check the edit history. I think I went out on a limb on one this morning and took a chance on reverting. I'll check them more carefully. Thanks again! Wikipelli Talk 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UT

Light Painting

Thank you so much Wikipelli. Of course that was right. I'm a international known light artist with clients like Canon, Mercedes Benz, Diesel, Nike, Coldplay and many more. I was very angry about this edit. Thank you very much for you help. JanLeonardo (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Your message on the talk page was good-faith and I was too quick to remove it. However, you will want to be very careful about conflict of interest when including information about yourself in Wikipedia. It is regarded as particularly bad form to include information about yourself in an article. Self-promotion is the greatest risk. If other editors feel that your edits are simply to promote yourself they can, and probably will, revert you. If, however, your work has gained you notoriety and thus notability, then it would be better for others to include it in articles. Good luck! Wikipelli Talk 17:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

UPS i did a again. sorry. please help me. sorry, sorry. JanLeonardo (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem you can post the information wikipelli. please edit and post it again. JanLeonardo (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

IP user 203.153.12.80 - disruptive editing

Hi, I saw you gave the user of this IP address a very last warning (see User talk:203.153.12.80): was that based on his first attempt (around 1955 GMT) to vandalize the Dell page or his 2nd attempt at 2034, so some 40 minutes later. Based on timestamp it seems for the 2nd attempt - but imho such a dual attempt with 40 minutes between the two edits can't be excused and imho (again) this user should have been blocked already. If the IP address is actually a shared IP address (where the user does indeed vary) it is a good reason for real editors to use an account. Tonkie (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

User:Wikipelli/Church Hill Road Covered Bridge

Just found this page, which is a redirect to Church Hill Road Covered Bridge. Still need it? If so, of course you don't need to reply; I just thought you might want to have it deleted if you don't care about it anymore. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I don't need it at all, really. In fact, there are a number of similar redirects there - left behind when pages are moved. Guess I didn't want to bother an admin with a bunch of deletion requests!  :) Wikipelli Talk 11:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Found a bunch of these pages when looking at all of the articles about Columbiana County places listed on the National Register. Would you like me to delete all of them that are purely redirects? No need to tag them, if you'd like all to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
That would be great! Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 13:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Supreme

Hi there, As for Supreme; no problem; I knew my comment was not the sort of thing that should be on the page itself, but I didn't know how else to draw attention to the page's deficiency. I visited the Supreme page in order to find out which exact years that series was published. This is such basic info that I feel it should definitely be given at the top of the page, but it isn't there, and thus I did not get the (again, very basic) info I was looking for, which prompted me to react. I figured that maybe the author was monitoring the page and I could leave a message about it right there. But you are not the author of the page? The top paragraph of a Wikipedia page always seems to be locked, and I don't know what to do if I felt corrections were needed at that level. - Tue Sorensen, Denmark 82.143.208.65 (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You can edit the top paragraph of a Wikipedia page by clicking Edit at the top, not on the right. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tue.... Demiurge is quite right about where to click on the page.
I understand that it can be frustrating looking for information that isn't there. The thing to be aware of, though, is that individual pages do not really have 'authors' in the usual sense. In fact, since the Supreme (comics) page was created in 2005, I'd say there have been dozens of 'authors'. That's just how Wikipedia works. I'm sure there are those that monitor the page to see if there are changes. I just happened to notice your edit through a vandalism checking program.
The BEST thing to do in a case like this is to put comments on the article's "Talk" page. All articles on Wikipedia have an associated Talk page (you'll see the tab at the top of the window). There, you can put in comments about how the article is written, and certainly suggestions for information to include. This allows other interested editors to see your comments and discuss them and perhaps (hopefully!) find and include the information that you're seeking. Thanks for your comment and your message! If there's anything more I can do to help, feel free to leave me a message! Cheers! Wikipelli Talk 23:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For beating a fellow Huggler to reverting vandalism, and for all your anti-vandalism work on Wikipedia. Thanks!
Arctic Kangaroo 15:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks much!  :) Wikipelli Talk 15:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

be2

I must begin by giving a thousand apologies for misusing the "wikipedia" system. I have never edited on it before, and only did so because I was absolutely bombarded by their messages (be2) on facebook and email when i went to investigate their claims. Having worked for a psychometric company and many, many psychologists i have some understanding of what those tests (they purport to give) involve. Compounded with that I am now studying Environmental Science and have undertaken several Statistics courses so have a basic understanding of that as well (so know their claims to be bullshit). I apologise for any inappropriate responses on the site. I should definitely have read through things more appropriately to find out the best way to respond. I will definitely not make the same mistake again, and I genuinely have the utmost understanding for the integrity the site wishes to have. I simply got a bit carried away with the preposterous claims the Be2 site maintained to any integrity. I certainly never lost any money to them, only took seconds for me to understand they were a complete shambles, I simply wanted to warn others, albeit not in the best way. Again, I apologise for causing any offence or disrespect to Wikipedia. I definitely would like to post again, but this time I will read the regulations and protocols a little bit more fully and temper my response with good sense rather than indignation. I would be grateful and appreciative of any advice that you could give. Kind regards, Catriona Lamberton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catriona UTS (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Apologies aren't necessary at all. I'm glad you see the point of the reverting of your edits and the messages left on your page. Remember, too, that Wikipedia is not a means for advertising a business or service. The article on Be2 should be factual and non-biased. If you see claims to things that are false and you can provide reliable third-party sources, you can certainly include those in the article. The goal is to create a verifiable article. Thanks again for your message! If you have any questions, please let me know!  :) Wikipelli Talk 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for the revert to my talk page, much appreciated. Fraggle81 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Wikipelli, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 16:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Wikipelli! I have always been a fan of your new-page-patrol work, and I just noticed that you weren't an admin yet. Would you be interested in running? I see that someone asked you last year, but I hope enough time has passed since then for you to reconsider. :) For what it's worth, I don't think you would have any trouble at all passing RfA, judging from your articles, your anti-vandalism and NPP work, and your calm and helpful interaction style. What do you think? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 05:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestion. Becoming an admin is something that I have thought about and that I would like to do. Right now, my work life is a little overwhelming, but I'll give it some thought. Perhaps in a couple of months I'll give it a go. Thank you again for your message. :) Cheers Wikipelli Talk 11:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. You can expect to see me back here in two months' time. :) If you decide you're ready to run in the meantime, just let me know and I'll write you up a nomination statement. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

why my website is not useful

please explain why have u rejected my posting our website is fully relevant as we have created in the message.

Hi.. I see that your account is blocked now so I don't know if you'll read this or not. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted this edit for a couple of reasons. First, when you inserted the information, you completely erased the entire article. The article is about Open Directory Project and the information was valid. Second, the information that you added to the article was promotional in nature. That is, it appeared to me that the information was not encyclopedic but designed to promote a business with which, judging by your user name, you are associated. If you have any other questions about it, please feel free to leave me a message. Wikipelli Talk 15:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

hi

you seem really cool. can i have your email. mine i shadowsneak@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.17.249 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

The Signpost: 29 April 2013