User talk:Dan6hell66/Archive 2

Shakira discography
Hello. I just wanted to remind you of Doing about 15 edits separately can really clutter up watchlists and the article's. Please keep this in mind in the future. Thank you   • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   23:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I kind of figured it was something like that. However, it still clutters the article history and watchlists. I can see each edit took about 5-10 minutes, I can see also you might want to save the edit prematurely so you don't lose your work. But what you might also consider is importing the article's contents into a subpage in your userspace? In any matter, happy editing  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. please don't change the shakira singles. I added the references for germany and france so i request to you pls. pls. do not change the singles column Ashishvats23 (talk), 15 November 2009 (UTC)

'Correct' format?
Where did you get this from? It's usually personal preference that determines this, an article-by-article issue. In fact, usually in an FLC, it will be requested that all sections are separate second tier headings, not third. I don't see where you're coming from by calling your preferred way "correct" and changing dozens of articles? k.i.a.c ( talktome  -  contribs ) 07:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That template is out ouf date, just yesterday I was contemplating putting it up for deletion actually. I used to have the same view as you, with using the subheadings, however... more and more people were using no subheadings, I was told in an FL nom to change it and so that's what I've stuck with. If there's no policy/guideline or even consensus on one way or another you really shouldn't be changing them on a mass scale. This wasn't having a go at you, you obviously do a lot of great work here I just felt you were wasting time doing something that seemed pointless. Anyway, don't mind me. :) k.i.a.c  ( talktome  -  contribs ) 01:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:She Wolf music video by Shakira.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:She Wolf music video by Shakira.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  04:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Accidental Vandalism Edit
Dear Dan6hell66: Sorry, I accidentally rolled back an edit you made to One Love (Bob Marley song) and the system charged you with an act of vandalism. This was a complete error on my part (I hit the wrong Wiki hotlink), so I reverted my own edit to the article and your contribution has been restored. Sorry about that. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Coldplay single covers
I have nominated coldplay single covers for merging into coldplay album covers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. A8 UDI  19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Chart procession & succession
Hello, I suggest you to read our discussion about this topic Wikipedia_talk: Record_charts and there is no obligation to use Chart procession & succession according to BADCHARTS (Thestreamer (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Using reflinks / misleading edit summary
You recently made this edit,, to Some Hearts with the edit summary of "Filling in 2 references using Reflinks, yet some of the edit was not explained. Why would you change all of the align="center" 's to style="text-align:center;"?  Aspects (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so no response to my inquiry and yet more edits such as to I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho) where you made the same changes I mentioned above?  I would appreciate a response to my inquiry. Aspects (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
 * Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
 * Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
 * Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
 * Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
 * Please read Help:Reverting and Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
 * You can test Rollback at New admin school/Rollback
 * You may wish to display the User wikipedia/rollback userbox and/or the Rollback top icon on your user page
 * If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian charts
There are two Brazilian Hot 100 charts. The one on WP:BADCHARTS is published by hot100brasil.com. The one on WP:GOODCHARTS is published by Billboard Brasil.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have good reason to challenge the citation for Billboard Brasil, that's one thing. That doesn't mean the chart is on WP:BADCHARTS. Worldcat doesn't include Billboard Brasil (try searching by name), so not being able to find an individual ISSN isn't a good reason to challenge a citation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Elissa
I would appreciate it if you would stop undoing any relevant information added to the article (Elissa), a development and growth of an article is extremely crucial therefore preventing an article from developing may defeat Wikipedia's purpose as an organisation. Thank you.

All sources I have provided are extremely reliable. I edited the article thoroughly to improve its contents as much of the information previously on the article was somewhat limited or too neutral. I do not appreciate my contributions being reverted or removed for invalid reasons. It would be greatly appreciated if you avoid reverting the article to the previous contributor's version. Thank you 86.152.168.194 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamerr (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi, I just want to say thanks for reverting some trash talk on my talk page that was from a banned user that was very rude and upsetting to me. I really appreciate it. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  23:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Couple recent speedies
Hey Dan. Looks like we're both pretty active on Huggle tonight. Just wanted to confirm you know what's going on with DIDWW and Kowlittens. Looks like they've been tagged for speedy, but the original authors want to keep editing them. I've noticed you've reverted some of those edits when they pull the speedy tag. Perhaps we can let them keep editing but just make sure the speedy tag gets restored (i.e. not revert and restore speedy when it gets pulled down). I'm sure you've got a million more edits than me and much more experience, but I've gotten bitten on a couple reverts to speedy pages recently and would hate for you to get bitten considering all of your good edits. Anyway, hope you're having a great evening. Oh, and try to leave some reverts for us little guys every once in awhile ;-). -- Gnowor TC 04:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC) -- Gnowor TC 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of removal of 'Windows Mobile' from a title in Smartphone
The edit to remove Windows Mobile from Smartphone looks to me to have been justified and in good faith and came with an edit summary. You should have at least added an edit summary for your reversion - it wasn't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That user doesn't appear to have been reverted at all, and hasn't had any vandalism-related warnings at all. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Neos destinations
Hello, I was wondering why you reverted my edits to Neos destinations. Another editor had to come along and re-edit them - I'm not a vandalist you know! Speed74 (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War casualties
Thanks for reverting the blanking. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dan, you write "Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Casualties of the Iraq War has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation." - I have not removed without explanation. I have given explanation in the edit summary. Timeshifter is POV Pushing here. There are two problems. First, WP:Weight. Timeshifter has made this particular source into a para twice as long as actual notable sources like IBC and ILCS. Second, he has used third-hand refs to hide the actual origin of this source, which is only a single UPI article citing an obscure website called "Islam Memo" that has been criticised by actual RS's as essentially a radical Islamic website that is unreliable. Then he has piled on non-RS sources like internet postings of someone called Nick Davies. This is an attempt to launder one obscure article from a non-RS into a commentary worthy of more space than other actually notable sources.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, but you should talk about it with other editors on the talk page. Thank you. D6h!  What's on your mind?  20:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know User:Ronaldc0224 is an SPA. He has been blanking, mass reverting, and edit warring. On several Iraq War casualty pages. He has already been blocked once for 3RR recently. He usually blanks first, before discussion. Most of what he just wrote is BS since he does not understand the policies. See also: --Timeshifter (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, whatever you say Truthshifter, try to stop constantly POV Pushing by massively over-weighting obscure rumours from Jihadist websites over legitimate large-scale studies by credible sources like the UN, and then burying and laundering the actual bogus origins of your rumours with 3rd hand references and non-RS rubbish from blogs and obscure books that notable sources never cite. I know you need to keep your Million fraud going somehow, but come on.Ronaldc0224 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Use the talk pages of the relevant articles rather than spewing more clueless, uncivil, unfounded accusations. See also: WP:AGF. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh!, I did not know all this information, I had not researched about, because I use Huggle to reverse these edits, also isn't an article in which I contribute. About the blanking pages only thing to do is undo those vandalic editions and use the Blocking policy, Thanks for the info. D6h!  <sup style="color:red;">What's on your mind?  23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Huggle info. I bookmarked it. Keep up the good work. I may install Huggle, and to do my share of the work. I also edit at Wikia and the Commons. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Military Brats (US subculture)
Please provide the specific (exact) reason for your revert. Everything I added had citations. You are required to give a precise reason for a revert, otherwise you are committing vandalism.

98.245.148.9 (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)