User talk:InventDa

Thank you for your contributions to List of Cow and Chicken episodes, but unless you can justify your redirects and blanking beyond a few words in an edit summary, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of United Arts Theater
A tag has been placed on United Arts Theater, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Blair - Speak to me 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Hello, I could not help but notice some of your edits, since we've crossed interests in at least one area (cartoons). I would like to suggest a couple of things:


 * Don't revert long-standing redirects. If a page was redirected several months ago, find out why. As it is now, you've reverted a few redirects with no explanation. Your edit summary ("sorce") leaves no indication of your actions. They've since been redirected:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

You've also posted a few vandalism warnings on IP editors pages, which did not warrant any notification:


 * based on [. As it is, there was no vandalism, that was a legitimate edit on the IP user part, and your own edit afterwards confirm the legitimacy of the edits (since you've simply rearranged the text, wikified a couple of names, and corrected a stale date)
 * based on . Same thing as above.

If you feel the need to correct someone, in a case like this, make the edit, and provide a summary as to why. If you need to bring it their attention, personal messages on a talk page go further than a heavy-handed vandalism warning if a vandalism warning is not necessitated. One of the basic foundations of Wikipedia is assume good faith. You will run into vandalism which is blatant, and which does necessitate increasing warnings, but those will be pretty obvious when you find them.

I've also noticed you posted for admin, with a focus on vandalism, but would really recommend that you get a feel for watching the "Recent Changes" page, watching the vandalism warnings, and other admin related areas. No, I'm not an admin, and I honestly don't have any plans on posting myself for admin. But I wanted to drop you a quick note. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Only warning
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. @Wikipedian@ 7 October 2007 (UTC) I should also warn you that if you continue to vandalize you will be shut down forever from editing. Please stop.

Cranium
Hi there. I've removed your article for deletion tag, as this article is about a notable company. If you disagree, feel free to put it up at Articles for Deletion so people can discuss it. --Lukobe 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ClueBot
Hello, please don't tamper with the settings on automated robots unless it is an emergency. Thanks. -- Hdt 83     Chat 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)