User talk:In fact/Archive 2

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?   00:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you HJ Mitchell for trusting me. *** in fact ***   (contact)  06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

PR
You are welcome, though I did very little. Much as I'd like to help with directly improving the article, I don't have time. After the past GA reviewer's concerns have been addressed, you might re-submit to PR. If that happens, I'd be happy to review Iran again. Best wishes. Finetooth (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
No, In fact I am not a member of the Persian Gulf group. I am just interested in the biodiversity of the gulf. Hope all is going well and have a wonderful holiday season :)! Dr. Persi (talk) 16:36, 25 December 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.

  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  04:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for trusting me. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  09:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problems. I've done this purely in good faith and will be watching your contributions for a few days. This is purely because of the fact that you have to necessarily take into account what administrator KrakatoaKatie commented when she refused your rollback permission just a couple of days back. Please consider her comments extremely diligently. I repeat the same out here: First, learn how to wiklink. Next, learn how to identify vandalism, ask a non-cooperative user to stop with an appropriate warning (with the user talk message templates, for example), and report true vandals toWP:AIV. In other words, you have to necessarily read up on the difference between Vandalism and WP:Disruptive editing. Disruptive editing is not vandalism; and you cannot use rollback for the same. Whenever in doubt, don't use Rollback. That is the best way to be. Don't let me down. Thanks and regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  12:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: IRAN
Hi, thanks for the invite. I did share my comment on the discussion page. I am returning the compliment and inviting you to share your views (if any) at the anti-Iranian sentiments discussion page. 67.85.17.129 (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thank you for informing me. I just added my idea. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  07:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Capella Istropolitana
Hi there - I'm afraid I'm quite mystified by your "correction" of my edit re Capella Istropolitana. Are you, in fact, taking issue with my use of the term "chamber orchestra"? Regards, 64.118.113.26 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC) (PS - I'm a long-time editor, but not at my home computer.)
 * Hi, First of all I should thank you for helping Wikipedia to improve. About your edition, I should say half of it was correct when you correctly mentioned Capella Istropolitana. But when you mention chamber orchestra for Bratislava, it's incorrect, because it's a general name. If you could find the name of that Orchestra, which is exclusively for Bratislava, then it would be appropriate to be added to the article. Needless to say that it must be verified by a reference. I hope you are satisfied now. Best wishes, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  15:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Forgive me, but what on earth are you talking about? I'm very sorry, but I am unable to make sense of your remarks, as written. (My years of experience grading & correcting papers in college writing courses tell me that English is probably not your first language.) In any event, the facts as stated are accurate, and were not in need of "correction". Regards, 64.118.113.26 (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I accepted your final edition. BTW, try to keep calm. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  16:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Fighting vandalism
Hi, regarding 61.9.149.51, my aim was to allow the editor to learn and change attitude, not scare or push into a fight. Looking to this row of edits where he referred to a character from Alpha and Omega (film) looks to me like a young editor with plenty of opportunities to develop. However looking to his latest and persistent disruption to Serengeti, I agree with the harder stance. --Elekhh (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for clarification. We are all here to help. Best wishes, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  21:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Since some of the additions by Special:Contributions/99.52.150.146 were to small articles, I've reverted them.
Since some of the additions by Special:Contributions/99.52.150.146 were to small articles, I've reverted them. I agree with your comments on User_talk:Arthur_Rubin, backed with this search. 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They all seemed good to me, so I've reverted the rest of them. Good catch, "In fact"!  216.250.156.66 (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: claiming falsely that Sufjan is Persian
I'd like to understand what the problem with my edit for Sufjan is... Sufjan is an Arabic name. I'm not really too interested in what a journalist in the Washington Post writes, there are much more credible sources on the matter so please dont claim that my edit is not 'constructive,' I was making a valid correction. Sufjan comes from the word sayf... in fact is the plural of Sayf. I fear that post has not been 'constructive' in terms of adhering to your wish of claiming an Arabic word is Iranian or Persian - is that correct? You are very partial in your editing, I remind you that is NOT the point of Wikipedia!

You didnt respond to this message (can you?):

I'd like to understand what the problem with my edit for Sufjan is... Sufjan is an Arabic name. I'm not really too interested in what a journalist in the Washington Post writes, there are much more credible sources on the matter so please dont claim that my edit is not 'constructive,' I was making a valid correction. Sufjan comes from the word sayf... in fact is the plural of Sayf. I fear that post has not been 'constructive' in terms of adhering to your wish of claiming an Arabic word is Iranian or Persian - is that correct? You are very partial in your editing, I remind you that is NOT the point of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.201.165 (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all you should sign your messages in the talk pages. Then you should be patient for the other users to log in and read your messages. In wikipedia, everything is based on sources. You are not allowed to delete a referenced material from the article and claim the opposite without prior discussion in the article's discussion page, not here. As you see other editors have also reverted such changes. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  03:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

apology/deletion request
I just checked Billboard's website and found out the information I previously had was incorrect my apologies and now if I may make a request is it possible for You or I or anybody else to remove my user page? I'm not overreacting to criticism or anything I'm just not much into this editing thing and would rather leave the editing to the pros and just read this website to gain information once again I'm really sorry for the inconvenience and Thank You in advance for any assistance You can provide in removing my user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.50.249 (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, It's ok, when you understand that you have made a mistake and correct it yourself. Everybody makes mistakes. (even me) But the important thing is to correct it and try not to repeat it anymore. About your talk page, I have a better solution for you: why don't you make a user account and start to edit as a new editor? However if you do not want to register and have an account, I can ask an administrator about your talk page to be deleted from "warning messages". Just let me know what your decision will be. Best wishes, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  11:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi There just let me say thanks for being so understanding and I appreciate the offer however I simply choose not to create an account or go any further with "this one" so I'm going to have to ask You to ask an admin about having my talk page deleted once again I Thank You for your assistance and kindness.
 * OK, but just make sure you have undone all your previous edits to the normal state of the articles. I am going to ask an admin about your request. I am so glad about you. We are all here to help this project. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. You are allowed to delete your talk page per WP:BLANKING/WP:OWNTALK. Just make sure not to make mistakes any more. If in doubt, ask your questions in Help desk. Cheers, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry about the delay,   HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Benihana lawsuit
I have raised the question of whether the Lawsuit section should be retained in the Benihana article at Content noticeboard. -- Donald Albury 00:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me. I just added my comment. Regards, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  20:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has added citations since I last looked at the article, which does change things. I'm backing off. -- Donald Albury 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Still I believe the blogs should be deleted from the references. Don't you think so ? *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  21:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Blogs are out per Verifiability, unless they meet the very specific conditions listed for newspaper and magazine "blogs". I took Benihana off my watch list. Do I need to add it back? -- Donald Albury 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the blogs from the reference list ( but not the content ). I think we should watch it for a period of time, until it is stable. Best wishes, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

IP address:202.63.140.34... oops....
I guess I was over-zealous in my warnings of IP address:202.63.140.34. Just love that warning button too much... :) Thanks for pointing it out. Dinky town  talk  09:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go... Its done.  Though I'm sure he'll earn those warnings soon enough, given his history... Dinky town   talk  09:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe. At least we just made sure we did the right thing. Cheers, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  09:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Smile :)

 * Hi In fact, just leaving a note to tell you to not forgetting smiling when you're responding to other editors on the RfC. I feel you're taking the discussions to heart. You shouldn't be doing that. Just relax, don't get too serious, and chug on. That's how the project functions smoothly and that's how everybody respects you better. Emboldening statements is akin to shouting - and that's something you should rarely do. Also, an RfC is not a process decided within a day; it could take a week, a month, but you'll have to give time for other editors to drop by and understand the issue. So again, smile, relax, take a deep breath, and smile again, before posting a reply :) See ya around.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  17:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC
Hi. I'm not sure how to respond to your note about Kaveh Farrokh. I don't know anything about him. Did you send the note to me by mistake perhaps? Finetooth (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I got one too and am equally mystified... – ukexpat (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just quit the discussion. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  14:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto for me to. Strange. Had to double check my contribs to see what I had to do with any of that. Answer = nothing. Guess it's a moot point now. David Able 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we can say the right things but wont necessarily get the right results...I know how it feels. You are doing well man. Do your best and what happens is well, out of our control. Cheers and sorry I wasnt able to be up to date earlier to contribute. Dr. Persi (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)