User talk:Apparition11/Archives/2008

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --AW (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

No Heading
it told me to leave a message so i listened to it and am leaving one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.89.83 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2008 December 1

Resolved
==August 2008== Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Jpoelma13 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but how can you say that it wasn't POV? Obviously you agree with some since you didn't restore all of it [|1], plus what you did restore even included use of the first person. Apparition11 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also want to add, that I have no problem if you don't agree with what I saw as POV, but I don't like being warned for (I believe) obvious Good Faith edits. Apparition11 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; the article sounded like an advertizement, which is an obvious POV violation, but some of the information in the article might be useful to someone. Instead of only deleting the offending sentences, which blantently promoted the school, you removed most of the article.  What you're doing is like trying to remove tumors with a chainsaw.  It's just too much.  We are trying to create a free online encyclopedia here.  Encyclopedias are supposed to be books of facts.  Deleting those facts is a step backwards, because it makes the article less informative.


 * I tried to improve to upon you edit. I deleted the the sentences about how great the school was, and restored the rest of the article, such as what classes they have, and their location, because that is reasonable information for an article about a school to have.  I just think you deleted the facts along with the biased information.   When I went back over the article a second time, I couldn't find any use of the first person.  However, I may have missed a sentence or two.


 * I know that you made your edit in good faith, and you probably feel that I am being unfair to you, but the first level of warning does assume good faith. You are being too heavy-handed in your editing, regardless of your intentions to improve the encyclopedia.  If you were to continue editing in this manner, we could loss valuable infromation.  I won't pretend that information about the schools in Pakistan is hugely important, but this could become a problem if you edit more important articles in this manner.  I am asking you to be more judicious in your editing, to consider which parts of the article need to be deleted.  I'm sorry that we don't have a specific user-warning template to convay all of this, otherwise I would have used it in the first place.  I probably should have typed a note like this one in the first place.Jpoelma13 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I still whole-heartily disagree with your use of a template. While I may have been a little heavy handed in removing the Academic Programs section, since you did agree with parts of it, I don't see as to how it deserves a warning. I wouldn't have minded a simple message telling me you disagreed, but I still believe the warning should be removed.


 * About the use of first person, I have went back and changed it as well as taking out the external link in the main body. Apparition11 (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you said that I removed most of the article. While it is true in size, not necessarily in content. The biggest part of the article is a list of subjects. I don't think that that's really notable. If you disagree, that's fine, but I still think my edits were justified. Apparition11 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you believe that I am taking this warning too hard, but I take warnings, both giving and receiving them, very seriously. After I stepped back and cooled off, I realized that the problem may be that you do not see where I was coming from. Below is all of the text that you restored from my removal and my reasoning for removing it. is the diff for reference. Please review it and see if it really deserved a warning.

It has a co-educational setup from montessori to class 5 and beyond up to A-level. Classes 6 to O-level have separate branches for boys and girls, respectively. This sentence maybe should've been merged into a sentence in the 'Academic Programs' section since it really makes no sense to someone not familiar with the subject and gives no explanation. Also, the sentence that previously followed was blatant POV. Perhaps it should've been merged, but I still believe that it's justified.

Headstart "Robofort" Center for Engineering and Robotics is in operation since 2003. Initial technical support was provided by PCS Edventures Inc.(based at Idaho, USA). At Headstart-Robofort we have dovetailed technology, engineering, communications, math, problem solving and team skills into existing curriculum with project-based learning.

What is the Headstart "Robofort" Center for Engineering and Robotics? It does not explain at all. This section also included an external link in the main body to the company who provides technical support, which I don't see as notable. It also uses the first person. The following sentence previously was blatant POV. Given all this, I don't really see what is accomplished by this paragraph, besides promoting the organizations.

--Academic Programs--

The 'O' and 'A' Level programs are affiliated with University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate (UCLES). 'O' Level students are required to take minimum of eight subjects from a wide range of subjects, to qualify for the GCE (General Certificate of Education). 'A' Level students are required to choose a minimum of three subjects.

---O-Level Subjects---

---A-Level Subjects---
 * Additional Mathematics
 * Art & Design
 * Biology
 * Business Studies
 * Chemistry
 * Computer Studies
 * Economics
 * English Language
 * English Literature
 * Fashion & Fabrics
 * Food & Nutrition
 * Islamiat
 * Mathematics
 * Pakistan Studies
 * Physics
 * Principles of Accounting
 * Urdu
 * World Affairs


 * Accounting
 * Art & Design
 * Biology
 * Business Studies
 * Chemistry
 * Computing
 * Economics
 * Literature in English
 * General Paper (AS)
 * Law
 * Mathematics
 * Physics
 * Psychology
 * Sociology
 * Urdu

This section is mainly a list of subjects. According to WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines, "Trivia which is only of interest to pupils in the school (such as daily lunch menus, location of the toilets, a room-by-room description of the school facilities)" should not be included. Unfortunately, I was unable to find as much as a discussion about lists of curriculum. I don't see how this would interest anyone but students. Regardless of if we disagree, I think this removal is justified. The opening sentence may should have been left, but the second sentence should have been deleted if the list was.

I'll conceed that possibly one sentence should have been left (and another merged with it), but I believe that the rest of what I removed was justified. I ask you, is that sentence really enough to justify the warning or do you think my logic was so flawed that it has no merit? If no, please strikeout your warning. I'm not necessarily saying that you're wrong for restoring, but I'm also not saying that I'm wrong for removing it. It seems to me that in order to make Wikipedia better, we would be better off debating the removal instead of you just saying that I'm wrong and issuing a warning. In my experience, when people see things as differently as we apparently do, the best answer is usually somewhere in the middle. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, in my heated moment, I overlooked one thing you said: that you probably should've written a message. This is what I was wanting. I have no problem discussing things, and, from time to time, I've been known to be wrong :). That and I believe you also admitted that the template wasn't exactly right for the situation. Well, according to Warn: "you are responsible for ensuring that the template's text is appropriate to the violation: if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." Given all of this, please strikeout the warning. Apparition11 (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes
While your edit may be true (I don't know), please do not insert commentary into the main article. Instead, use the talk page or provide a reference. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 23:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC) (pasted from 76.185.45.51's talk page) Apparition11 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So rather than actually checking for facts, you simply revert pages.

You people are ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.45.51 (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in the article, but if what you claim is true, simply provide a reference. It shouldn't be difficult. Also, please
 * refrain from making personal attacks. If you want it included, find a reference, and I'll help you include if you need help. Apparition11 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC) (pasted from 76.185.45.51's talk page Apparition11 (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In reference to the edit, couse couse has not changed from the school's tradional chant motto, you mentioned a link in the edit summary to a receipe for a dish, which makes no sense in regards to the edit you made. If there has been a change, properly source it IN the article and make sure you are correct in it. The reason the edit was reverted was becuase you are not familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of style and editing guidelines that states the format for article and their sections, including links. Please read over it before continuing editing. Thank you. -- eric (mailbox)  00:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you left a comment on my talk page that you intended for talk. Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC) (pasted from User talk:EricV89). Apparition11 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I just left it on yours becuase he is actively writing there. I can remove it if you would like. -- eric (mailbox)  00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) (pasted from User talk:EricV89).
 * Oh, gotcha. That's cool, I'm just a lil slow sometimes (well, most of the time) :) Cheers ! Apparition11 (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC) (pasted from User talk:EricV89). Apparition11 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

✅ Ok, me and the IP address were able to discuss things, so this should end further problems. Thanks. Happy editing! -- eric (mailbox)  00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Help
GL Communications Inc - I nominated this page for speedy deletion because it is an obvious advert for the company, but the author keeps removing the speedy deletion tag. Could you look into this please? Chem-MTFC (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just a sec. Apparition11 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Every time I start to reply, he does it again :) He's now put a hang-on tag, so it looks like he is done now. I had to deal with this article before, so I know how frustrating it can be. Happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind on that "he is done now" :) I'll help keep an eye on it. Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted now! Apparition11 (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That was an awkward customer!! Chem-MTFC (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Caxton Associates, LLC - speedy deletion
I literally just posted the article stub on Caxton Associates about 30 seconds before you nominated it for speedy deletion. I have not even had a chance to add to it. You need to get a life. Aside from being one of the larger hedge funds, one would think that as a business major you might have heard of its founder and operator, Bruce Kovner - whether you live (according to your user page) in the middle of nowhere or not. Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, please refrain from personal attacks. If you intend to add more info, feel free to put an under construction tag on it or contest the deletion using a hangon tag. If it gets deleted, you are free to resubmit the article in the future with more content to establish notability. Apparition11 (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Asking you to get a life is not attacking you to my knowledge. I am just asking that before you do something that affects someone else, may you can actually think first and then do... Had you been a little more resourceful you would have either done an internet search on the subject and even checked to see when the article was created. However, suggesting that your lack of knowledge may be a precursor for your actions, merely suggests that you are premature and overzealous in your behavior. Apparently, as noted by the other contributor comments on this page, you have this problem in the past.  Additionally, you have only been on Wikipedia for 6 months - I have been contributing here for 2 years. I do not appreciate having to recreate and reenter articles because of another user's lack of education, intelligence, or emotional problems... You might want to take a more cautious approach to your speedy deletion problem, which appears to be ongoing... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The other situation you referred was actually something totally different, and, unfortunately, he has decided against discussing it, despite me attempting several times to do so. Even if it were not a personal attack, it was at the very least uncivil. I assure you, I have life and a very good life. Also, where I grew up in no way has any influence on what I know or do not know. Also, lack of education, formal and informal, is certainly not an issue I have. Also, I fail to see where it says that if you've been here longer than me, it automatically means that you are right.


 * Perhaps I was a little overzealous, but also, you could have spent an extra minute when creating the article to say that more was coming or to go ahead and add additional information. Additionally, instead of telling me to get a life, you could've left a polite note saying that you needed more time or explainig why you disagreed. I have removed the tag since you have included more info now. Apparition11 (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that I certainly do not have a lack intelligence and I have no emotional problems, but thanks for your concern... Apparition11 (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey can you explain?
My page for my band was put up for speedy deletion? I keep editing it to try make it "ok" so it wont be deleted yet it keeps getting deleted. What do i do? Please reply as soon as possible, best wishes Ayperos.

Ayperos (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to have an article on Wikipedia, subjects must be considered notable by criteria. The criteria for bands can be found here: WP:BAND. Unless your band meets this criteria, it should not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not for advertising. I'm sorry. Apparition11 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?
My page was put up yesterday and until I've uploaded a company logo to it, it's now under speedy deletion. I currently a general manager working for Cool Rhino and I believe I do not have any intention to sell nor promote my products through here; however, I believe Wikipedia has established a knowledgable channel for people to learn new things. This company is young; however it has a deep history behind. I hope you could help me ractify the problem for my page to stay on Linda See
 * I'm sorry, I'm not completely sure what you are meaning, is the image up for deletion or the page? If it's the page, you may have a conflict of interest issue. While not exactly wrong, it is discouraged. If this is the case, you're best bet is to make sure to write it from a neutral point of view. Also, the best way to avoid deletion is to use reliable, third party sources. If you use NPOV and reliable sources, your article will almost definately not be deleted. If your talking about the image, I aplogize, but I know less about that than I know about women and according to my girlfriend, I know absolutely nothing about women :) I can direct you to WP:IMAGE, but unfortunately, that is about it. It is too complex for me, so I just try to stay away from it. I hope this helped at least a little. Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, for the image, this is probably the link that would be more beneficial: WP:IUP. Apparition11 (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply; However, I've took out the picture (logo) that I've put in this morning and yet, why you still delete my page? What've I done that against the rule? Sometimes I really don't know what's wrong with my article especially if other companies could have their company information on wikepedia and I just don't understand why can I??? THis is unfair. Let me know any thing I could do the reactivate back my page again? LindaSee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindasee (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete your page. I did place a speedy deletion tag on it August 9, but an admin deleted it. I cannot remember exactly why, but judging by the notification, it was because it read like an advertisement. Although I played no role this time, looking at the deletion log, it appears that one was labeled nonsense and the other was labeled advertising and partially a copyright violation. Judging by that, it sounds as if it was somewhat copied from another web page, which is not acceptable. You may want to read WP:BFAQ, specifically WP:BFAQ. If you were to recreate, in order to survive, it would have to be written from a neutral point of view and provide reliable resources. Due to your conflict of interest, you'd probably be best off by avoiding this particular article and trying your hand at editing others. If your company is notable, some other editor will create it eventually. Apparition11 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Apparition11, I am impressed by the work you've been doing here over the past few weeks. I've given you rollback permission to help with your counter-vandalism efforts. Keep up the good work! Owen&times; &#9742;  20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I was planning on inquiring about rollback in the next couple of days as it seems that it'll make reverting vandalism much more efficient. I'll make sure to use it responsibly. Thanks again! Apparition11 (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal
I received an "inquiry" from the subject of my article asking me to refrain from discussing him online. Can you please remove the discussion in question. I don't need a dispute with anyone. Newyork666 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking instead of just removing it. It is poor practice to remove discussions from other user's talk pages w/o permission. Although I'm pretty sure that is not necessarily a reason to remove it, I will. Apparition11 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning
You have every right to remove a warning from your talk page; after all it is your talk page. According to the policy, the removal a warning from a talk page simply indicates that you have recieved the warning. I Looking back on the incident I was wrong to warn you about it. There are times regular users when should be warned about their actions, however that was not one of those times. I appologize for it. Considering that the article in question was pretty much in question was pretty much an advertizement, I think you that were right to try to get rid of the article. However, it would have been better if you had just marked the page for speedy deletion, instead of deleting most of it. Jpoelma13 | Talk | cont 23:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that, as far as I know, I am not allowed to remove or change previously added comments on the talk pages of other users. There is a warning for that in the big list of warning templates. So, I think that you would have been the one to remove it. Jpoelma13 | Talk | cont 23:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying and apolgizing! I feel much better now :) As for the article, I lean a little more towards the inclusionist side and only really like to mark vanity pages, vandalism, test pages, etc. Also, I believe that schools are best sent to AfD than speedied. I didn't really feel that the article should be deleted, but I absolutely didn't believe that the advertising and non-notable content should remain. Thanks again! Apparition11 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you're right in that you shouldn't remove comments from other people's talk pages or alter someone else's comments. You are, however, permitted to change your own comments, but it is considered good practice to strike through the comment when it is withdrawn or changed in order to avoid confusion. See Civil for where it discusses withdrawing comments. Due to discussion of the matter, I am restoring the the discussion in question. I would like to ask you to strike through it as the link says, but if you would rather not, the apology is enough. Thanks and happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I struck out the Warning, I chose however to leave the rest of conversation intact for the records. Jpoelma13 | Talk | cont 00:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds great! Thanks a lot! Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you!
...for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. I have a special present for situations like this...

.

Prince of Canadat 09:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear... that was your first? Well, display it with pride! It's here if you want to pass on the love ;) Prince of Canadat 09:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will! Apparition11 (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem
I've been using Huggle for the past few days and it's really a nice tool. Happy editing! Soliloquialtalk 21:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just something to point out...
Hey Apparition11,

I just wanted to point out something. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this a mistake? I can't really see anything commendable about the edit this user made.

With respect, ''' ɷ i m b u s a n i a 10:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. That was a vandalism revert I made using WP:HUGGLE. I read on one of the noticeboards that the Huggle Templates were vandalized earlier, but I assumed that it was before I began my session. Obviously, I was wrong :) Unfortunately, there's probably a lot of other Huggle users who left the same note :( Thanks for the head up, I'll go through my contribs and try to correct all of these instances. Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Barn Star
A little something
 * Yep that sort of thing has happened to me allot also :P. I know how you feel when you see the "you have new messages" bit popup :P.  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

have you been following me around?
lolz you have been following me around i mean cmon ROYAL OAK INTERMEDIATE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.126.11 (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called recent changes. I do look at your contributions every time that you vandalize to make sure none got missed though. Apparition11 (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

deletion of charles keisler
hello i am Koman90 creator of my on webpage on myself User:Koman90, i have creatteing editing and maintaing articles in technology fo about two years now and i have hea of other pepole osting autobiographies on wikipedia i was wondering hoe i cloud do this without being deleted. I cannot do it all at once as i am a colege student and working on a project of this magnitude is to longof a proces to sit down and type out in one setting. Please fell free to contact me on my usertalk page or e-mail me at koman90@live.com. --Koman90 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. Writing an autobiography about yourself is strongly discouraged (emphasis not mine), please see WP:AB, WP:COI, and WP:NOT. If you are notable by Wikipedia's criteria, WP:N, then someone else will eventually write the article. If you do not meet the criteria, then the page would eventually be deleted. If you do meet the criteria, the article would need to be written from a neutral point of view and backed up reliable, third-party, published sources. The article I saw read like something you'd read on a personal homepage, not in an encyclopedia. You may want to read WP:FIRST for tips on writing your first article, but I would strongly suggest that you do attempt to write an autobiography. Apparition11 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit) I should add though, that it would be perfectly acceptable to add a lot of the stuff from the article to your userpage, especially the stuff about your history with technology. Letting other editors know about your interests and experiences will give them a better idea of who they are working with. Please see WP:Userpage for details about what is and what is not allowed there. Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So if i re-create User:Koman90 But i no dot post my autobiography and leave it just as a user profile as you have done it is safe, am i correct? --Koman90 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That should work :) Editors are generally given a lot of leeway as to how they edit and maintain their userpages. There are some restrictions about what should be included though, see WP:USERPAGE for these. Cheers and happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

re:November 2008
why did you congradualate me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.89.83 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (Cross Posted) Replying to your message on my talk page, I left that note because someone from your IP address appeared to have made an nonconstructive edit that can be seen here . I assumed that it was simply an editing test, and that it was not malicious. Apparition11 (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

but why

why and how did tou use my ip address and what is it


 * (Cross posted) When you edit without an account, your IP is logged, which allows us to message you and see your contributions. I left the message to make sure that you knew where you could go and make tests, and also to let you know that editing like that is not appropriate, but it seems that you have did it again. Apparition11 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

http://forum.oneofakindtrading.com.au/
Hi! Looking at all the external table tennis links, I can't see why the forum link http://forum.oneofakindtrading.com.au is any less relevant. Some of the links point directly to a shop, surely a forum is far more useful and relevant? Cheers! 121.45.18.122 (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.18.122 (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. Well, links to forums are against our external links guideline. Linking to shops is also against it and should probably be removed also. I'll give them a quick run through in a bit. Thanks and happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit) I removed one of the more blatant violations of WP:EL, which was a commercial website. A few of the others probably should be removed as well, but I'll have to look at them closer before feeling comfortable removing them. I only glanced through the links to governing bodies. The ones I looked at appeared to be legit, but there's a good possibility that a couple got sneaked in that are not. I'll try to give them thorough look later. Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! Yes that is fair enough, I was merely surprised that my links were deleted, whereas some of the others, which seemed blatant advertising, were still included. Can I ask you to consider this site: http://oneofakindtrading.com.au? Since this is my site, I have an obvious conflict of interest, so I'll let you be the judge. This site is a massive collection of equipment reviews (some highly technical) and table tennis articles and guides. Yes there is some advertising on the site, and a link to an online shop, but this is no different to most other sites listed. Compared to some of the other sites, my sites is bigger in terms of reviews, has been going for many years, and contains far more information than just reviews. It is a common reference for people wanting to buy equipment, but don't know what to choose. Table tennis is one of the most complicated sports when it comes to equipment... there are few (if any) sports with such a wide variety of equipment, and where the choice of equipment is so critical. Thanks for your consideration! Haggisv (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem about the explanation, and thank you for inquiring about it and bringing the other links to light. I agree that several of the links probably do not belong. I plan on looking more carefully at them when I get more time to look closer and search to see what has been previously discussed.


 * I have to regrettably say that I don't think that your site should be included. I'm concerned that the shop and advertising may be too much to really satisfy WP:EL. Another concern I have is that the article probably already has too many links and should really be trimmed down instead of added to. Thank you very much for acknowledging your WP:COI and doing as it suggested at WP:BFAQ. You are welcome to ask about it at Talk:Table Tennis to see if other editors feel differently, but I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't. If you have any questions about editing, you are welcome to ask me. I may not always be able to answer, but when I can't, I should be able to point you in a direction to get an answer :) Thanks and happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For reverting vandalism to my user page :) --Faradayplank (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I was just returning the favor ;) Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I just want to thank you for the reversion of vandalism you did to my talk page, it's very much appreciated. I've never been under attack like this so I am kind of surprised by this, but thanks for helping me out. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, any time. I know how it is for IPs to vandalize your user/talk pages for no apparent reason ;) Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Still it was nice of you to stop by and I appreciate it. Oh and I didn't even notice the indent you corrected on my page to your comment so I did get a smile when I saw you fix it and realized that I didn't notice.  Keep up the good work and happy editing.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * lol. If only all my mistakes made somebody smile, most of them just make me look like an idiot :) Happy editing to you, too! Apparition11 (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AIV report
(Cross posted from User talk:TeaDrinker) I'm so sorry, but it appears that I lied during my last AIV report. I said that it was fresh off of a block, but I misread it. It said December 1, I thought it said December 10. That's what I get for editing when I should be sleeping. If you feel you need to unblock, feel free to mention me and my blunder in the summary, but this user has a long history of the same disruption (virtually all of their edits). I apologize for this, I wasn't trying to mislead you. Apparition11 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Howdy and thanks for the note! Thanks for the heads up, but I'm pretty sure your initial assessment was accurate.  I think the block is still appropriate.  I did spot the difference in the dates, but given the history as you note, there does seem to be a recurring problem. Thanks and keep up the great work (but do get some sleep too)!  Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Usually when I manually report somebody, by the time I click save, somebody else has already reported them because I always double check my facts. Of course the one time I don't... :) I thought it was still a good block, every edit since coming off that block has been the same thing that got them blocked every other time, but I just wanted to make sure you noticed it. Thanks for understanding. Now I'm off to bed :) Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine...
(Cross posted from User Talk:Commander Lightning) Please stop with this "Secret Police" nonsense; there is no secret police force on Wikipedia. Your warning here is not appropriate. We keep no list of vandals, and you seem to imply that you have some sort of special authority, which you do not. I replaced that message with a more suitable one. Please read WP:VANDAL to learn how to properly deal with vandalism. As OwenX has already explained, we attempt to educate vandals and not threaten them. In my experience, a simple template stops most vandals from vandalizing again, and, those who don't stop are easier to get blocked by using these templates.

Also, when you spot vandalism, you should also revert it, which you didn't do when you left the inappropriate warning. I have reverted it now (which is how I stumbled onto this). If you really want to help Wikipedia, read the policy that I asked you to read, and follow what it says. If you need any help, feel free to ask me on my talk page, but remember, Wikipedia is a serious project and not a game, which you seem to be treating it as. If you continue like this, you could very possibly end up being blocked. I would also suggest that you think about getting adopted by an experienced user to help teach you how to become a constructive editor. Thank you. Apparition11 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was only doing my job, protecting Wikipedia from vandals like Stevenhuynh3. I thought giving him a strict warning would cause him to cease his vandalism. But if you want me to back off, I'll back off. But I will report vandals to the administration and continue to fix vandalized pages. I will inform the rest of the Wiki Secret Police that intimidation is no longer an option. From now on, if there's any vandalism, we'll report it directly to the administration and they'll take it from there. -- Commander Lightning  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I'm glad that you want to help with vandalism efforts, and in no way do I want to discourage you from doing so, but just please try to do it according to our policies. For example, if you report vandalism to WP:AIV and the vandal has not had any warnings, they will not be blocked. Generally, they should receive 4 warnings before being reported, a,  ,  , and  . WP:VANDAL goes more in depth about it. Strict warnings are sometimes acceptable, usually in the form of  , but these warnings should not imply that you are in a position of authority or be overly threatening. 'Please stop or you will be blocked' is much more acceptable than 'we will be watching your every move'. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or any other established editor. Apparition11 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to go over something with you. The reason why I started the Wiki Secret Police was to cut vandalism down to almost nothing, to make the CVU's work much easier. The only problem with it is, well, I only have one subordinate to assist in my work. If I had volunteers (and I'm not saying just any volunteers, I'm talking experts that could get the job done), it would make things a lot easier. -- Commander Lightning  (The  Galactic Empire  will CRUSH the  Rebel Alliance  )  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately, vandalism will never be cut down to almost nothing, that is a weakness with an open wiki that anyone can edit. The best we can do is revert it when we see it, and properly warn the vandals in order to get them blocked if they don't stop. However, there are many good vandal fighters who help curb the problem. The more vandal fighters, the better, but you don't really need to start a group to fight vandalism. Also, there are no "subordinates" on Wikipedia, even of you started the group. We're all equal, even administrators (in theory anyway). Apparition11 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, to tell you the truth, it gets a bit lonely with only one user working for the team. It's too bad we can't place an event on the main page regarding "expert volunteers are being asked to join the Wiki Secret Police". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Lightning (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, I'm pretty sure that won't happen :) If you want to be a part of a good sized team of vandal fighters, your best bet is probably to get more involved with WP:CVU. Since all vandal fighters do pretty much the same thing, making a lot different groups won't really accomplish much. Apparition11 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that. I've been a member of the CVU for several months now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Lightning (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that on your user page. That's why I said more involved :) Apparition11 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can tell you one article I reverted, North Dakota. After someone put in the governor space "bitch", I reported it immediately, and then reverted it.
 * Yeah, vandals can get pretty nasty. If you start doing a lot of vandal fighting, you'll run into a lot of things like that. Just remember that that one instance isn't enough to get them blocked, they have to be appropriately warned first. Apparition11 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes they push me to the point where I just want to go Spetznaz (or Gestapo) on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Lightning (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but that's what they want you to do. Remember, don't feed the trolls :) Apparition11 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's something wrong. On the list of the CVU, my name isn't there. Why? Did they cashier me from the unit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Lightning (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never done it because I'm not a member, so I don't know off of the top of my head, but give me a minute and I'll see if I can figure it out. Apparition11 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I figured it out. I changed your user page a tad to get your name to appear here. To list your name here, you have to do it manually, just follow the instructions. Hope this helps! Apparition11 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Thank you, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commander Lightning (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, if you need anything else, just ask! Apparition11 (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello
This is Black Reign. I am sorry I vandalize darkness it was funny though Black Reign 56 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, please stop. You have been blocked twice this month for vandalism and the next time will likely be for a long time. It's not funny to disrupt the encyclopedia and damage other people's hard work. Wikipedia can be a very fun place if you contribute constructively, so please consider helping people instead of damaging. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 16:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)