User talk:Hello71/Archive 2009–2012

Personal Information on your Userpage
Hi Hello71. My name is Backslash Forwardslash. I am a Wikipedia administrator, and I noticed you have recently created a userpage. I don't intend to scare you away or attempt to intimidate you, but I thought you might want to reconsider some of the items on your userpage. You may have not realised that the items on your userpage release personal information about yourself (real name or age etc), which could be used against you in the future. While 99% of all the editors on Wikipedia are friendly, welcoming and harmless, there is a chance your personal information could be misused by editors not so 'high-minded'. A handful of editors have even felt real-world implications due to their Wikipedia edits and release of personal information.

Protecting your privacy, and remaining anonymous while on the internet — on any site — is a good idea. The internet is a worldwide and largely unregulated medium, and while Wikipedia is one of the safer sites, there are definite risks while online. With cyber-bullying and cyberstalking becoming increasingly commonplace, it is important that you take every precaution to remain safe.

I have deleted some revisions of your userpage in respect to your privacy for the time being, just in case you wish to reverse on your decision to have such content on public display. As a result, the information is only available to administrators. You are, of course, welcome to ask myself or another administrator to restore them, but I just wanted to make you aware of the risks involved with releasing personal information on such a public forum. If you wish to have the personal information removed so that even administrators cannot view it, I can request oversight on your behalf. You are also welcome to discuss this with me on my talk page, or privately via e-mail if you have any concerns. Again, I do not want to scare you. Wikipedia is a fantastic place with an incredibly supportive community. I'm just trying to ensure you are fully aware of the risks involved in editing, which are very similar to the risks you come across every day online. Hope to hear from you. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Copyright symbol has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. kcylsnavS 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did put an edit summary... 8888 is clearly faster to type than 1620 or whatever it is. Hello71 02:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crest-eagle.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Crest-eagle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Glen Shields Public School Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Glen Shields Public School Logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2011 (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 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. Mifter (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The AfD for West Huaxia Road (Shanghai Metro)
Hi. If you review WP:INH, you will find that geographic subjects such as these are commonly viewed as inherently notable. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed CSD on Sophy Gray (Pre-Raphaelite muse)
I'm dropping by to let you know that I removed your CSD A7 from Sophy Gray (Pre-Raphaelite muse). The article has been improved a bit since you left it, and in my assessment the article makes a credible assertion of notability, that Sophy Gray was the subject of multiple works by famous painter John Everett Millais. I'm not really sure how the article would do at an AFD, but I think that is enough to survive an A7. I wont object if you want to pursue an alternative deletion process. Monty 845  18:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

IP user
Bannedmeansbanned Jasper Deng (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Hello and welcome! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Jim1138. Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, so thank you for taking the time to participate. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to User talk:Tide rolls with this edit, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions about editing, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Tide rolls with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome committee
Hello Hello (no redundancy intended),

thanks for your message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.129.65.54&diff=cur). As you can see, i already have an account, but sometimes i edit logged off - in this case i had already logged off and was prepared to "hit the sack", but then my wiki-mind thought of sometimes and i rushed to the article without logging in, lest i forgot.

Keep up the good work, see you, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is because after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly: for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Paparazzi Project
Thank you for reading and commenting on Paparazzi Project.

By yesterday, I had referenced three sources, and two of them were independent of the subject. The third source was the website of an accredited educational institution. Unfortunately, up until last week, I knew nothing about paparazzi. When I attempted to look it up in wikipedia, it gave me a new article dialog box. I created a stub, expecting to fill in details as I got them, or expecting help from a more knowledgable editor.

I found plenty of sources, but most of them were from vendors or hobbyists. I think this is the nature of the subject.

According to RS, deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state.

I spent several hours today sifting through sources, until I finally found what appears to be a peer reviewed publication.

Thanks for helping me improve the article.

FYI: Here I Am
Formatting per MOS:MUSIC Example "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", < shows title formatting is completed before other punct is added.—99.186.119.110 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your report at WP:ANEW
Hello! You did just fine with your first report for Edit Warring. Be sure when reporting an editor that you place on their talk page. Also, you may want to check out this tool, which makes reporting easier. The tool still requires manual intervention, but it may aid you by eliminating a ton of copy/pasting. Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for denying my right to add important information which people need to know in order to know both sides of the story, not just the Communist agenda of the separatists and terrorists. Do you just hang around all day ready to protect and mollycoddle the murderous people who would willingly stab their fellow countrymen in the back and tear their country apart in another civil war, like they have already done twice just during the course of the 20th century? If people are not allowed to know the whole truth, they will never be able to realise the true scope of the threat they are faced by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.31.67 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches
Fair enough, I should have used an explanatory edit summary. Imho, match schedule pages don't need a lead-in copypasted over from the main article. The very first link is to the main article, providing all the context. I removed those maintenance templates because there really is nothing to fix, and very very likely nobody will make those unnecessary changes just to meet the demands of some self-proclaimed content zealots. --87.79.132.31 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice for RfA candidates
Hi. I'm justletting you know that I reverted your unconstructive edit to Advice for RfA candidates. Essays do not of course require referencing. That said, I hope you found my essay useful, and if you need any help understanding our policies, or what adminship is all about, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

gummy mush
i enjoy chewing on gummy drippy whippy creamy mush. Mush is the gummy elastic substance that drips from dog's snouts. Not all dogs are mush dogs of course. Lab retrievers are the world champions. Mush needs to have a wikipedia page.

I hope you understand and appreciate that Interstate 5 is the most magic freeway in the world and i believe this should be acknowledged on the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.140.237 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

golden mush interstate 5
now i know what you're thinking... and yeah you think all my b.s. should be removed. but dont you see how myopic and simple minded you're being? when are you gonna live up to your reputation. this is all a bunch of ^%$@!(Ng bY&^%*(!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.140.237 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

exceptance
according to my computer NONE of my warnings went through. If I knew they had, I only would have sent one "Selene Scott (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)"

Speedy deletion of STC Group declined
Hi Hello71. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for STC Group, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, under criterion A7 because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. "The college is known for its Simulator Park, which is unique in the world." is a claim of significance" Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. DES (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Alfred Missong jun.
Hello Hello71, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alfred Missong jun., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: there is certainly enough assertion of importance here to pass A7, in fact an ex-Ambassador in major posts like these is almost certainly notable. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: OfficeFloor
Hello Hello71, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of OfficeFloor, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
Your persistent adding of spurious speedy deletion tags has become excessively disruptive. I've blocked your account to prevent you from engaging in additional disruption. Please read the list of speedy deletion criteria before trying to apply them. Wily D 14:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: ESC C16
Hello Hello71, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ESC C16, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Blocked
In the context of having received three warnings, plus at least three taggings I had had to decline (though I didn't pile on any warnings), and so forth, plus being familiar enough with Wikipedia that you shouldn't have been tearing through the encyclopaedia on a disruption spree in the first place, it seemed like the best way to prevent further disruption, yes. Wily D 22:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Eugene Castelle
W

What is wrong with the Article?

King Luciano (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Eugene Castelle
Im trying my best to find Good Source's and it is quite hard to find Mafia Releated Sources also trying to make the Article's much longer. Do I need to add more Reference's or is the Article going to be deleted anyway?

King Luciano (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eugene Castelle
Hello Hello71. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eugene Castelle, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required.''' Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

New page patrolling
Hello Hello! You still  seem  to  be having  problems with  your patrolling. 'Seems to be...' or 'Looks like...' are not valid rationales for PROD or AFD, and the effort should be to  cite  policies and/or guidelines which  you  are fairly  certain  the article does not  comply  with,  and 'poorly  written' is never a criterion  for deletion. It is also  relatively  easy  to  research  for COPYVIO rather than simply say  that  you  think it  is. Perhaps you could take a moment to read WP:NPP and review the checklists  of what  patrollers can do - it's more than just  tagging  for deletion, PROD,  and AfD. That said, your counter vandalism  works looks quite good - keep  it up! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That Speedy Deletion request...
I reverted it. The page was blanked recently.

Assuming Good Faith
Good faith is about a person's intent; not their action (or the content of their edits). Saying that an essay doesn't contain any points isn't assuming bad faith, asserting that a person linked it as an essay, rather than posting the the content directly in the discussion to hide the fact that they didn't have any argument, and to create the misleading impression that there was widespread support for the position would've been an assumption of bad faith. Similarly, a saying a tag is both unexplained and wildly untrue is just an assertion of fact; I didn't say anything about why it was added, which might've been a misclick, or ... who knows? (It's very difficult to assume anything when there's no explaination, eh?)

It may well be true that I've done a lousier job of that at Americas distinguishing been the POV that's being pushed by certain edits and the POV of the editors supporting that position (although weirdly enough, they seem to be diametrically opposite points of view to the one their imposing); that's a tighter balance rope to walk (and I probably do fuck it up from time to time)

The discussion of implicit racial bias and how it influences our thinking is a long one (and either they're difficult to navigate, or our articles do a lousy job of explaining it), but it's generally the case that we all pick up racial biases which influence us (both consciously and unconsciously, though people don't always appreciate how it acts unconsciously - something like Aversive_racism). Beyond this, though, in a social context (in this case, Wikipedia), where a racial bias is strongly imposed (see Systemic bias), referring to a Philippine National Park as "unremarkable" appeals to the racial biases of the editing community as a whole (indeed, regardless of the tagger's intent), as that kind of nonsense wouldn't be tolerated at Sable Island National Park, for instance. Only an admin's implicit (or explicit) racial/nationalist bias would ever lead them to seriously consider deletion.

I might be a bit blunt, (okay, I am a bit blunt), but balanced against the need to be clear, I think I'm doing a good job (at the very least, beyond perhaps the Americas example, I don't believe any of the examples show any failure to assume good faith on my part. Wily D 05:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, for your help...
Let me know if my issues are now cleared — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleatdestiny (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC) THis was regarding the Messianic Bible Translation. It was my mistake. My 1st edit. Though I was being deleted falsely... I think I have corrected the issues could you review...Kyleatdestiny (talk)

Speedy deletion declined: Mordecai Plaut
Hello Hello71. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mordecai Plaut, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Editor found a reference in Google Books. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

i m new
you are right it was an experiment, i just created my account and wanted to check edit option and its effect. now i feel it was a big mistake but one thing i want to know that how u saw my edit? i mean where you?→ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah bin abdullah (talk • contribs) 22:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

i m new
you are right it was an experiment, i just created my account and wanted to check edit option and its effect. now i feel it was a big mistake but one thing i want to know that how u saw my edit? i mean where you?abdullah (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion as nonsense
I've just declined to nominations you made under this criterion. neither of them med the conditions at Patent nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright then, please explain what Technical education in KSA is about, in cohesive English. ⁓ Hello  71  20:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is obviously about technical and vocational training in Saudi Arabia. I'll grant the writing is poor, but it is not completely incoherent. Bad writing or broken English are explicitly exempted from that deletion criterion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what is the rest of the article about? The part that is not a restatement of the title. ⁓ Hello  71  20:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Unless the entire text of the article is incoherent gibberish it cannot be deleted as patent nonsense. If there are parts of it that cannot be understood they can be removed or edited to make them easier to comprehend. Many articles that are in decent shape today started out in a similar state. We want to encourage persons from outside the Western world to contribute here, not just delete anything they post because their skills in English are lacking. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Victor Vancier: Revision history
19:39, 16 September 2012‎ Hello71 (talk | contribs)‎. . (9,804 bytes) (+950)‎. . (reverting to pre-edit war; both of you: refrain from editing this page unless a consensus is reached through an appropriate medium (this article's talk, etc)

Response
The article is libelous, completely inaccurate and blatantly biased: Fairness and Truth (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Victor Vancier is not the name that Chaim Ben Pesach uses or is known by. To call Ben Pesach by this name is like having the article on Barack Obama refer to him as Barry Soetoro, which was his childhood name. Or referring to Mohammed Ali by his English name Cassius Clay. Or referring to Malcolm X by his earlier name Malcolm Little, or Louis Farrakhan by his original name Louis Wolcott. Wikipedia recognizes in all of these cases that public figures should be referred to by the names they are best known by. To refuse to apply this same rule to Ben Pesach demonstrates a biased double standard. It can be noted within the article that Victor Vancier is Ben Pesach's English name, but the article itself should be under the headline "Chaim Ben Pesach".
 * 2) The article maliciously libels Ben Pesach, calling him a "virgin", claiming that he is not really Jewish and claiming that his mother is not Jewish. When I attempted to correct these flagrant libels, they were restored and I was told that I would not be allowed to correct them.
 * 3) The article libelously asserts that Ben Pesach formed the Jewish Task Force (JTF)"since Irv Rubin started to dissociate the JDL from Vancier because his terrorist activities had harmed their reputation". In reality, Irv Rubin committed suicide while in prison awaiting trial on charges of seeking to bomb the office of a Congressman - so to claim that Rubin was trying to change JDL's "terrorist" reputation is absurd since it was Rubin himself who gave the JDL that reputation. Ben Pesach was convicted of damaging Soviet diplomatic property to demand freedom for 2 million Russian Jews, but no one was ever injured in any of these incidents. But Rubin sought to literally blow up a Congressman. When I sought to remove this libelous twisting of the facts, the libel was restored and I was told that I would not be allowed to correct it.
 * 4) The article takes a handful of quotes out of context to distort their meaning and create an impression that Ben Pesach is insane. Many court cases have held that this tactic of selective quoting out of context can also constitute libelous defamation. A review of the thousands of videos that Ben Pesach and his followers have uploaded to YouTube and other sites reveals that these quotes do not accurately reflect what Ben Pesach and JTF espouse.
 * 5) The article libelously claims that Ben Pesach is barred from entering Israel because of his "terrorist" activities. In reality, Ben Pesach is barred because of his Kahanist views. No proof is offered that Ben Pesach is barred because of "terrorist acts", as the article libelously contends.
 * 6) The article libelously contends that Ben Pesach was involved in organizations "which has been outlawed in Israel and[7] were proclaimed illegal terrorist organizations in 1994 and the groups subsequently officially disbanded". As you can see from this last quote, the article is also poorly written and grammatically incorrect. In reality, Ben Pesach was never a member of the two organizations that were outlawed in 1994 and no one in Israel has ever claimed that he was. So this again is flagrantly libelous.
 * 7) The article deliberately omits the most important and relevant information on Ben Pesach: that he heads a movement with two forums that have thousands of members. There are over 5000 members on his English forum and 3500 members on his Hebrew forum. His Hebrew forum is comprised almost entirely of young Israeli Jews who reside in Israel, proving that Ben Pesach's organization is perfectly legal and fully functioning in the Jewish state.
 * 8) The article deliberately omits the other most important fact about Ben Pesach: he has uploaded thousands of videos in both Hebrew and English with millions of views. The Israeli media has reported that many Israeli Jews watch Ben Pesach's videos. I attempted to introduce proof of this in the article that I wrote, but that was removed.
 * 9) User:The Banner proved his bias when he restored the original article with the comment: "Your denial of terrorism has nothing to do with truth or fairness." In other words, The Banner wants the article to reflect his opinion rather than objectively reflecting the facts.
 * 10) The new article that I wrote is completely accurate and truthful. It objectively presents Ben Pesach and his movement. After years of allowing the most vicious libel against Ben Pesach, the least that Wikipedia should do is restore the original article and not allow anti-Semites to again introduce libelous defamations.

Your recent CSD
Hi there Hello71! I removed your addition of db-person on John Squires (soccer) for various reasons. The first of them being, per WP:CSD, "an article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and "the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The article was obviously of encyclopaedic value, and should not have been CSD'd. When I came across it, I expanded it with ease. Please check next time you CSD an article, to see if it has encyclopaedic value. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

jack steinberger
i am a new user and not perfectly equipped with editing knowledge. thank you for your comment, but my entry "jack-steinberger-gymnasium" is not a hoax entry. see www.jack-steinberger-gymnasium.de for proof (or jack-steinberger-gymnasium in the german wikipedia). jack steinberger is up to today the only living person a german prep school has been named after (particularly since it was his alma mater). Janx8686 (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Miss May I
Sorry what I wrote on the Miss May I page, but may if you users and admins would start doing their jobs and not let IP addresses day in and day out remove SOURCED content from pages, I wouldn't be upset. It's ridiculous dude, sorry for losing my cool but ya know… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.180.131 (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your A3 speedy deletion
Hello there! I removed your WP:A3 speedy deletion tag from the article The further adventures of hank the cowdog. I didn't believe the article fit A3 criteria as it seemed to have enough content to be included, and A3 is for articles "consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images.". If you believe the article should be deleted, go ahead and pursue deletion by other means, but I feel that it has context and notability sufficient to remain on Wikipedia. Thanks for your work in patrolling new pages! Ducknish (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined
Hi Hello71. I have declined your speedy deletion request on Pierre Preville. To be honest, I really don't understand why you nominated it for deletion--the article credibly claims that he received awards in a number of international sporting events. That seems an obvious claim of importance sufficient to pass WP:CSD. Remember, CSD should only be for the most obvious cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have don't post to my page solar cave... 3:

 * make eye kittens*

Hello! I'm Shy Zorua! 04:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 

WP:BLPPROD declined
Hi Hello71! I just want you to know that I have declined you proposed deletion on Matt Simko and replaced it with A7 due to that the article does not assert the importance of its subject. Mediran talk 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am the administrator of the original Band, and the revival Band tries to make money with our work,there is a lawsuit in Brasil. This is our Band history and should not mix with theirs. They should have their own page with their own albuns and explanation to whatever they =want to. I keep coming back and fixing it but somehow it goes back to not what it is, sincerely Livia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.89.88 (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

David Cerullo
You deleted my edit to his page when I added. " THese evengelists are primarily focused on people sending in "seed" AKA money. In return, they make promises such as divine debt elimination, triple favor from God and even claim that by sending in your seed, god will send you money via FedEx and UPS" If you watch this show you would know this wording is 100% correct, what part of it do you not agree with?

Onmonopia (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling
Hi. I noticed you recently  tagged Los Idolos del Momento  fior deletion. NPP is more than just  tagging. There are a lot of other tasks that have to  be done such  as, for example, checking  to  see if a previous CSD or PROD hasn't  been removed by  the creator. Please see this history. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did check the history of that page, but it slipped my mind to warn the user. ⁓ Hello  71  00:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you do not like a page, don’t delete, rather make it look good
In a weird way, you are misusing your power of deleting sites. Your inability to find reason behind creating a page doesn’t mean you can use your weird Hitler power of deleting it. Leave Wikipedia if you cannot make Wikipedia resourceful.

Re:
Hi Hello, lol. This user, 76.189.121.57 or IP has been deleting sourced material and threatened to report me for reverting their edits. I do believe this was a personal attack on me because I do put the sourced vocal ranges on non-opera singers pages, and the user has something against that. I don't like edit warring, but the user has been doing it as well for some reason. Tribal44 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44

WP:CSD
Hi there, Hello71! Just FYI re this -- in the future, please don't WP:BITE new editors and quickly tag new pages for A3 -- rather, try to wait at least 10 minutes (in case they have a major contribution in the process). Thanks! :)  Theo polisme  21:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle and redirects
Hi, Sorry about [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaccine_controversies&diff=516849102&oldid=516849001 that]. You probably clicked on the button a few seconds after I got rid of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primate_Autism-Vaccine_Study&diff=prev&oldid=516848510 this]. Just a quirk of timing... bobrayner (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

BCR edit
I recently removed a link from the Bay City Roller wiki page because the person that runs that site has been known to sell bootleg material of the band and is using wiki to do so.I am new to wiki and didnt realise that I had to give a reason Squashy778 (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I was
... almost there, but you beat me to it. What a mess. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Troy Kelley
Thanks for the warnings you gave to the users who were edit warring on Troy Kelley two days ago. It's good to know that people are watching this kind of thing! For next time, if you see obvious edit warring like this between multiple users, you can report them to WP:RFPP, or to WP:AN3 if only a few users are involved. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Electrostatic discharge
Hi Hello71, I wondered why you removed the External links from Electrostatic discharge? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:EL. The vast majority would not be reliable sources, and the rest would not be used in the article anyways. ⁓ Hello  71  16:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

forgot to sign my last message
Volcanoman7 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

AIV
Hello - there is a conversation on AIV about an IP you had warned which you may wish to participate in. Regards,  7  05:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

November 15, 2012
Hi Hello71! I appreciate your immediate response to my report about an act of vandalism done on Biñan. The content could have been a personal attack against me, as I edit the page, and this user might be known to me, hiding his true identity. My apologies on my unintentional attack to the user. I understand your core principle of interaction in a respectful and polite manner. If I have only collaborated with you at first, I would not have made that. I will certainly monitor such illegal acts, such as vandalism, and will seek your attention first immediately. Thank you very much. Burningbatsu (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

heyyy
ummm it a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvv-Kai-forever (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

CSD tag removal warnings
Hi! Thank you for the putting the csd tag back on Knight Legends as the user that removed the tag has not made any arguments for its removal. I am writing here to let you know that the user you warned at User talk:VanessaLu92 is not actually the creator the page. Only the page's creator is technically not allowed to remove the tag, while anyone else may do so but most provide a reason for it. Another user made the same mistake as you, so I am writing just to hopefully provide a reminder that when using the uw-speedy tags be sure to check to make sure they created the page. Cheers. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that. Time to go file an SPI. ⁓ Hello  71  04:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice job!
I'll take solace in the fact that I at least had you stumped for a few minutes there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francophonie&Androphilie (talk • contribs)

Ankit Fadia
Ankit Fadia is not a white hat hacker, he is a serial liar, I am being very kind here Please consider deleting the Ankit Fadia article.

Mongo Feels Better (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Mongo Feels Better, you may not make negative, defamatory claims against living people, not even on user talk pages. You may, on the article talk page, discuss reliable sources about the subject, but you must do so neutrally. Note that the link you gave is not a reliable source. I had to remove your claims from this page per WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Cronin Economics
Sorry, it looks like we ran into an edit conflict at Cronin Economics, and my AfD nomination overwrote your PROD. If you don't mind, I'm inclined to just leave it as an AfD, the article author already ignored advice at AfC, so they may well dispute a prod as well. Monty 845  03:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, don't think there'll be too much opposition. ⁓ Hello  71  03:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message.
Hello, Hello71. I wanted to thank you for your message and I completely understand your stance on why you removed the new section I added to the Pediatric Bipolar Disorder Wikipedia page. My only purpose was to obtain extra credit points in my grad school class. I apologize that my addition was not proper. Good day, Carolyndc77 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Carolyndc77Carolyndc77 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Try the Teahouse. Go   Phightins  !  23:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why
Why is that? Please do not make commanding statements without reasons to support them. This is 2012, not the feudal era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceLion (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Responding to this comment: Hello, I'm Hello71. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so it has been removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ⁓ Hello71 02:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

El Valle
I am sorry but I do not know who you are but this is the second time I have tried to add information on El Valle and it has been removed (I assume both times by you). Your remark is rather condescending. I am knew to Wikipedia and thought I would add a comment to this subject which is void of information. My students and I happen to be the only scientists and volcanologists that have studied El Valle volcano (to the best of my knowledge). My comments are taken directly from our published article in Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. which was a refereed article in a well-known science journal in the field of geochemistry and volcanology. I will be happy to debate "opinion" with you but I suspect that refereed articles accepted for publication carry some weight. If you are an expert on El Valle or Panama volcanism, please let me know your qualifications. I am a professor of volcanology and have a Ph.D. in the field. Science is discourse among scientists. My opinion, as you state it, is actually a hypothesis based on years of research and the collection of numerous volcanic samples while mapping that were subsequently analyzed for isotopes, major and trace elements and dated. We also made hundreds of thin sections and we analyzed the minerals in the rocks. If you care to give me your hypothesis based on your collection of data, I will be happy to explain my position in more detail. And another thing, this is not opinion. Opinion is stating that "You like tomatoes". Science is the development of a hypothesis that best explains the data. So let's hear your hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volcanoman7 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Georgie Porgie
Hello 71,

We appreciate your interest in our artist Georgie Porgie. But the wiki page that you have put up does not fully represent all of his career. We update his entire Bio to reflect all of his accomplishments. Please help us understand why you would remove the entire truth. All the Best! Tom Executive Assistant to georgie Porgie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeandros (talk • contribs) 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thank you for so quickly replacing the speedy tag I put on Atifs Lycian salamander when I accidentally chose the wrong deletion reason! I hope you like kittens.

Noiratsi (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC) 

Trolling
Avoid nonconstructive edits, like messing with my coding. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  11:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirect UT:ARBCOM to U:ARBCOM
To be consistent with other role accounts (e.g. User:Oversight), redirect User talk:Arbitration Committee to User:Arbitration Committee. ⁓ Hello  71  15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? What damage is being done by it not being redirected? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Approximately half an absolutely none. But "why not" is not a reasonable argument against consistency. ⁓ Hello  71  00:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat on that, but given they are both giving the same information and given that one two out of the five role account redirect to the userpage I don't see that this change would be for consistency. I imagine the main reason they are redirected is to stop people posting messages on that talk page, however full protection pretty much solves that issue as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I agree with Callanecc - there doesn't really seem to be a good reason to make this edit. If you think it is worth it, though, you can propose it at WP:AC/N. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

did you vote?
hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit | utter  07:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I voted. 3/4 times IIRC. Maybe that had something to do with it. ⁓ Hello  71  13:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC) [edited ⁓  Hello  71  13:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)]

Re original research at Demon (and Angels in Judaism)
Some Brown University professor apparently has his students trying to improve the articles for a grade. I've left a message on the talk for who I guess might be the professor, not that he's responded. And not that he's coordinated with WP:SUP. I think it's going to be a pain to do anything except wait for them to quit and then revert once they quit. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2012

Re original research at Demon (and Angels in Judaism)
If you have anything specific that needs to be changed on these pages, please let me know. Currently my students are ensuring that everything is cited from reliable sources. Please let me know what is objectionable, and I will make sure it is changed. It is a shame to lose all their hard work. MTB2112 (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2012

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ABUSE
Sorry, but I won't even bother giving you a IP quiz as the project is inactive. When I nominated myself, it took 2 months, and now the project is totally inactive. Sorry. Ebe 123  → report 01:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)