User talk:K6ka/Archives/2013/November

Category:Privately held companies of Wales
Thought about a vandal tag, decided that you had been too hasty by far Category:Privately held companies of Wales. Rgds, --2.101.131.89 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was an error on my end. I just got confused since the category showed up as a redlink for me, so I thought it didn't exist. Me apologies. K6ka (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:2620:0:862:1:91:198:174:67
Er. I think you're getting the wrong person - a lot. Er. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How? I use Twinkle to revert vandalism, and it automatically directs me to the author of the vandalized edit. If you're getting messages from someone else, then that's a bug in the software. Nothing I can do about that, sadly. K6ka (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What the hell...
I never edited Honoré Daumier's site. Why so I keep getting weird messages like that lately? --77.184.234.181 (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You're having the same problem as the person above this message. If you didn't do it, just ignore it. K6ka (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Tag happy
FYI:

It's always better to spend 5 seconds looking for a reliable source than to spend the same amount of time tagging an article. 70.235.87.52 (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry 'bout that; I mainly revert vandalism on Wikipedia, and I don't usually tag unsourced stuff on articles (I Google stuff but I only come for the info, not the source, so I often have to go digging in my page history to find it). Maybe I should just stick to reverting. K6ka (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverting vandalism is fine, and is to be commended. But reverting unsourced info can be problematic because it could erase potentially valuable information for which a reliable source is easy to find. 70.235.87.52 (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, thanks for the advice! K6ka (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sir Richard Strachan page
Sir Richard Strachan, 6th Baronet

Sir Richard never filed for a new grant or matriculation of Arms anywhere in the UK. The Arms shown on your webpage were erroneously provided in book published in 1873. This book has a notorious reputation for being inaccurate, and a second edition was published in 1877 attempting to rectify some of these errors. The artwork shown on the page was omitted from this second edition. There is absolutely no historical record that Sir Dicky EVER used Arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acejim (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry....
Ops I understand now "N" I wont do it again--86.152.78.32 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)