User talk:EWikist/Archive1





My Apologies on the TMI LU Edits!
I just wanted to apologize for that. I did it by mistake, it was only by this morning that I realized it was an email sent out to beta testers only.

TAD~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAppleDragon (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

MinuteClinic
What were the issues with my minuteclinic logo? I applied the correct Licensing information (even though it is not an SVG file) so the logo would not be removed. What was wrong? Tofutwitch11 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered.  EW  i kist Talk 14:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to see if there was a table for JPG, but there was not, just SVG. I wasn't using it as a sandbox, but just trying something. As not many people would have seen the article at that time, it would have little to no effect. Thanks anyway. Tofutwitch11 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 18:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Lego Universe
Template:Editnotices/Page/Lego Universe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  Chzz  ► 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

State-sponsored terrorism
Since I cannot edit the talk page there I am writing to you directly. I note your reversion to my edit. This section provides some balance to the similar section about the United Kingdom. You ask for citations, but the first two paragraphs already have full Wikipedia articles on the topics. The third paragraph is simply quoting a referenced newspaper. I therefore suggest you restore my addition. Oxtersniffer (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered. EWi kistTalk 21:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ponce De Leon Boutique Hotel
Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I can't figure out why would you do or ? I'm just another editor, not a sysop or some other high muckymuck, and you have no obligation to answer me, but I'm concerned that you may be confused about how some things work here and I'd like to help you understand that if I can. Or maybe it's me that's overlooking something. Either way, I'm confused. Best regards, T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 16:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered. EW  i kist Talk 17:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Adopition
Yes, please adopt me. Thanks! Battleaxe9872 Talk 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright!  EW  i kist Talk 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oreo
You recently removed a red-link name on the Oreo article and in the edit summary called it a "dead link". Do you do this often?Asher196 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What, fix links or call them "dead"? I just came across the bad link, and decided to twist up the monotony by referring it to "dead" as opposed to "red" or "bad". Maybe it'll catch on...  EW  i kist Talk 01:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused. Are you new to Wikipedia?  Red links are not "dead".  Red links exist to prompt users to create new articles.  See WP:Red link   Asher196 (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um... Red links represent a page that does not exist. It does not link to a full, "living" page. It is dead. If this is bothering you, I apologize. Not to be rude, but when I put that in the edit summary I didn't realize it would be scrutinized to the point of questioning my Wikipedia experience. I thought it sounded mildly snappy ("red link", "dead link"), but if you think not, sorry. Is there something wrong with my terminology?  EW  i kist Talk 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Autopia
Could you please return the Continuity section to Autopia please? I'm not too fussed about whether you agree or not, but to be honest with you, a lot of true Who fans find continuity very important and some of the information that was portrayed in that section, no matter how small, was still important. Please discuss before you delete.
 * Thefartydoctor (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)