User talk:Capricorn42/Archive2

Thanks
Thank you for removing the vandalism from my talk page so quickly. It is greatly appreciated. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed your huggle vandalism warnings to User:Jimmeht.
Dear Unpopular Opinion: I see you reverted a couple of edits to Template:US-journalist-stub by User:Jimmeht. Thanks for that. He was a new user confused about where to start his article. I noticed, however, that your huggle auto-warned him about vandalism because of your reverts. Since his mistake was a good faith one, I went ahead and removed your warnings from his talk page and left him a note about where/how to work on the article he intended to work on. I just wanted to let you know about removing your warnings. &hArr; &int;Æ S   dt  @ 07:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the note. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Delview_Secondary_School
Hello! No hard feelings, but I disagree with your revert and have nominated this article for deletion. I do not believe their is inherent notability in schools, but would like you to express your opinion in the discussion. I hope their are no hard feelings. Thank you for your time,  Matthew  Yeager  09:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep I forgot to inform you about the revert. I removed the tag just because schools are I believe schools are inherently notable and that article didn't look like a hoax, as the school has a website. No hard feelings either, lets see what the community says at AfD. Cheers! - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jumping in with my unsolicited opinion - there is a large group of editors who feel that any school is inherently notable. Accordingly, schools fall outside the scope of the A7 {db-notability} criterion. There are a number of other criterion that could get a school's article deleted (A1, A3, G10, G12), but the presumption is that being a school is an assertion of notability. That being said, Afd is generally the way to go if you wish to get an article on an educational institution deleted. -- Flewis (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you very much for watching my talk page today. That's very appreciated and I apologize for the mess :/ -- lucasbfr  talk 09:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, just make sure that your sending the vandals the correct warning templates . When in doubt, just send a general vandalism warning (by hitting Q on Huggle - as you did here ). Keep up the good work! -- Flewis (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I usually send the general vandalism warning (Q). That was because just before that edit I was reverting linkspam and accidentally hit (Ctrl+Shift+S) even though it was vandalism. Thanks for noticing :D - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
For reverting my talk page. You've also been beating me to the rollback a couple of times. :D  Gl ac ier   Wo lf   17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure ;-) - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello sir, or madam whichever applies. There used to be a picture on Appellate Division and I wanted it back. Sorry. 68.236.154.4 (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one. I have an account and I'm sorry I didn't log in. Oh, OBAMA WINS!! 68.236.154.4 (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great ^_^ - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

David Archuleta
Why are you reverting my edits to David Archuleta's article. It's true, he does smoke cigarettes! It's true, you're HORRIBLE! JUST HORRIBLE! YOU'RE HORRIBLE! HORRIBLE!

97.117.60.58 (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You simply can't go and add it without sources, and even if you do provide sources, that information is unencyclopedic and will be removed by another editor anyway. Yes I'm horrible. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Ashman
Hello Sir/Madam,

My husband and I have aired a website to pay genuine tribute to world quiz champion Kevin Ashman, and I believe that a link to this website on the Kevin Ashman Wikipedia page should be appropriate. Especially as this is the first Kevin Ashman website on the internet. I must admit, there isn't a lot of content yet but we've only just started and intend to add much original material that will surely be of interest to fans (for starters, we've already been given the go ahead for an interview with Kevin himself). Apparently the website is unjustly being viewed by some as a joke judging the reasons for deleting the link time after time. The last message I got even calls it a form of vandalism, that is absurd!!

''The recent edit you made to Kevin Ashman constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thank you. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)''

I hope someone can look this over.

Sincerely yours,

Maria Duchateau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.101.14.152 (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the wrong template it was not vandalism, I reverted your edits because it looked like link spam. Put the link on Talk page of the article requesting it be included in the article. People watching that page will insert the link in the external links section if they find it appropriate. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why have You reverted my edit on Monavie???
The message states it was "not constructive". I'd like to understand what was not construcive.83.14.137.66 (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Oh and can I 'borrow' your note that you have on the top of your page about mistakes on RC Patrol, would be handy for my talk page. Thanks,  Jackelfive (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome mate, and feel free to take the note, although its not my own creation I think it still falls under the GFDL. (Originally taken from here). - - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cognifide UK Partner
Hi,

Could you let me know why Cognifide was removed from the partner list?

Is there any problem with us being listed.

Best Regards Stuart Dean (stuart.dean@cognifide.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.202.100.5 (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ...Not sure what you are talking about sorry.. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Brittas - Tim and Gavin *are* gay
Hello. Regarding the entry for The Brittas Empire, when a character called Gavin has a relationship with a character called Tim, I think you'll find that the relationship is, in fact, gay. That's what I was clarifying. If you've seen the programme you'll know that they're gay characters. 91.142.38.86 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will trust you on that and revert my edit. Actually the word "gay" is a common word inserted by vandals in a lot of articles so I mistook your edit as vandalism. My apologies, - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting
Nice to see you on Huggle. You are beating me to quite a few reverts! Eric-Wester (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's nothing too special. One these days I will get around to redesigning it! Eric-Wester (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference
I added a reference to my apparant "unconstructive" edit. Can you look at the reference and tell me if it's reliable enough, I have a few other sites i can use as a reference.....also can I provide more reference for one chance? even if its inseting a single word —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.140.178 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok
Yes I understand where your coming from, when people adding the words homo and gay. I actually edited this into the sergius and bachus article a few months ago and i neevr found out why it was removed. But now I see why, thnx for providing the information...I'll make sure to include details in my edit summary 58.106.140.178 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my changes on the Luhn's Algorithm page
Hi, I recently added a link on this page to a Scheme implementation of Luhn's algorithm in my blog. This is extremely relevant to the article and IMHO it is a better example that the current link that is on there. I deliberately didn't delete the existing link because the chap had gone to some effort and it would have been extremely rude. Having the two links enables anyone interested to compare the two examples. I was very disappointed to see that you have removed my link when it clearly relates to the article and provides a hopefully valuable resource. Regards Andrew
 * Usually blogspot links are removed, read WP:EL. If I hadn't removed it, XlinksBot would have. If you feel your link would be useful, put it on the talk page of the article and let other editors decide whether it goes into the article or not. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)