User talk:Casmith 789

Hello! Welcome to my talk page!
My user page Talk to me (new message)

Talk to me (carry on with old message)

RfA
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

re:Hyderabad
well,casmith, I persnly dont like hyderabad and i bet no one looks it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurdav singh (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello :3
thank you for your input ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanmeetsqwerty (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fighting anonymous IP
Hi, the warning you gave me is in response to fighting the anonymous IP vandalizing Pope Pius X. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks and disregard last. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

read me
i think the external link was worth wile is and even approved by the govt officials

about the Blog
Hello Sir

The Blog is Old Enough to be listed in Wikipedia i is now endorsed by the Udaipur Division - If you need evidence leave me a call or Just call to the Collector Head of the City or SP

Thanks Sir

Sir Response
Sir. Actually the main Govt Site is Not frequently updated as Blog and Yes it summarizes the City in smaller view the blog allows the city mates to post their content themselves about the city which this concept was liked by the collector of the city itself so he approved you can see its banners all around in there city it is made by Students and even me 16 year old is included in that team. thats why i would like you to include that link. You can even Have a Telephonic conversation in this matter with the collector and me thanks sir.

include page
sir its actaully we will keep updating the references on Wikipedia and the site also.

so in that context i request you to include the Site in your wiki So that we keep updating both regardless of City people

Sanjitchohan was the author of the last 4 messages. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, why am I getting welcomed now?
Cool that you're welcoming newbies, but I've been contributing for months so I'm wondering why now. I did create a new stub today so I thought maybe it was my first new one, but I looked at my list and I've created new pages before too. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing of user talk pages
In | this edit you posted a warning to User:Iusepencils. about removing content from their own talk page. In fact users are allowed to delete messages from their own talk pages. It is presumed that this is an indication that they have read the messages. Since the messages remain in the page history it does not prevent them from being checked in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to Wikipedia policy where I can read this? Sorry, I can't find it :) It just seems to be a bad idea to remove warnings from your own talk page, as this could give people extra warnings. Anyway, thanks for telling me :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I too thought to begin with that this was a bad idea, and in a way I still do, as it is useful to be able to see how many warnings a user has had. However, it would be unrealistic to say that we can never remove anything from our own talk pages, as (1) some talk pages would become unmanageably huge and (2) we would be obliged to leave vandalism in place. On the face of it we could just say that warnings can't be removed, but there would still be problems. There would still be the vandalism problem, and also it would not be reasonable to require someone who made a few mistakes in the early part of their Wikipedia career to keep the warnings for years to come, long after they have learnt from the warnings. Bear in mind that many warnings are to users who didn't realise their error: not all are to vandals. Then again, if I give you a warning which many people, including you, think was not justified, should you be obliged to keep it? So all in all I have come round to the view that the existing policy on this is right. A warning is mainly intended to warn the user, and once they have seen the warning that purpose has been fulfilled. It is true that the warning also serves the secondary purpose of recording the fact that the user has been warned in case of future problems, but the record of the warning in the page history serves that purpose. Of course it would be more useful for the history to be more visible, but on balance I think that one disadvantage of current policy is outweighed by the advantages. By the way, although I watchlisted this page when I posted the above comment, because of a backlog it took me a few days to find your response. Putting a tag on my user page would have avoided this delay. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue wasn't urgent, and I found the policy by myself :) One possible resolution is archiving, as in messages such as warnings should be archived instead of deleted; this would get rid of the problem of talk pages remaining large and also warnings would go away after a while if you archived them. However, I see your point about the page history, and of course that remains so there is no problem. Anyway, I know for the future :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know this wasn't urgent, but I just thought I would mention it for future consideration. Yes I agree that archiving deals with some of the problems I mentioned, but not all of them. Actually I would much prefer it if vandals were not able to delete warnings, but really my main point is that the issue is not as simple as it first looks, and there are pros and cons. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 11:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Valeri Belkin
Matches WP:ATHLETE, specifically "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", Russian Second Division is fully professional as per WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues.

Geregen2 (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, no problem. It's either 1) "fully professional" or 2) "highest amateur level". Cheers. Geregen2 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
User:SmackBot is running round fixing them up as fast as it can. Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Luckily these are an easy fix, a space in the "population" figure. And they are all in a maintenance category, so they should get fixed tonight or tomorrow. About 10% of the infoboxes were affected. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC).
 * A lot less than hat seems like only a handful. Thanks again for your vigilance. Rich Farmbrough, 08:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

Rfa
I closed my Rfa about an hour ago and left a strongly worded closing statement. I wanted to make sure that you know that I did not mean it in reference to you. Your remarks were kind and supportive and I am very appreciative. I, for the most part, left the message that I did because I felt that I offered a legitimate suggestion to be taken into consideration for future Rfa's that was dismissed because I was power-hungry, an accusation that I am deeply resent. In any case, I hope to see you around the encyclopedia.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfa
Thanks a lot for your comment. As ridiculous as this sounds, it makes me tear up a little bit to hear someone finally say explicitly that they believe I am not just out for power. I hope to see you around the encyclopedia and if I ever have any questions I will remember your offer. Happy editing! - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do actually have a quick question. How important do you think content editing is to a successful Rfa? I can't seem to come up with anything that I know a good deal about that hasn't already been completely written out. - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 22:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Good catch
Good catch and fix. Would you mind checking the other related pages for consistency with that one?  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to User:TenOfAllTrades
I really would advise you to ignore changes to TOATS pages. It will be better for you. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.14.135 (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Gatling gun
Please accept my apologies. This was a simple 'misclick'/human error. Kind regards, -- Île_flottante~Floating island   Talk  23:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...
...regarding and Aquidaban; see WP:NEWT. — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  19:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot something:



The ed17 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * Cheers dude and many thanks for your actions in saving articles, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Brazilian battleship Aquidabã

 * Kudos to you, sir, for this well-done article! — Kralizec! (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 05:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I must have short term memory loss. It seems I already thanked you for that revert earlier today... Anyway, thank you again. :-)!&mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. User:Calmer Waters (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Calmer   Waters  07:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)