User talk:Lmatt/Archive

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 21:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Merging
Hi there! You recently merged Internet keyboard to computer keyboard. Good work! However, the last step in merging is to redirect the former to the latter (rather than deleting it), so that people looking for it will find the information. See Merge for details on how to do that. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

SAM Learning
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.

You need to explain why this doesn't fail WP:WEB. Femto 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please refrain from making personal attacks. See WP:NPA. --Yamla 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD Digg image
Re Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png, using an image to post "the numbers" to get past the text filter is not acceptable. We can not display these numbers on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ebuyer Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ebuyer Logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ISO 68-2
I changed your ISO 68-2 redirect to point at the general iso list, as the target does not appear to exist. If there is an existing target, feel free to change it to go there. Actually it would probable be a good idea to delete the redirect if there isn't a better place to send it, but I will leave that up to you. Monty 845  02:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

List of ISO standards - years
I notice that you recently Removed yearly sub-standards from the List of International Organization for Standardization standards. You might like to comment on my (as yet unanswered) question on that article's talk page: Should we add the year designation in each case? Mitch Ames (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation entries
I won't undo your edit at IEC connector (disambiguation), but each entry in a disambiguation page should only have one wikilink. You can find more details in Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). --Tothwolf (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you think IEC 60906-2 has a place on this page? Including it is against MOS:DABRL, but it seems important for completeness. If it doesn't, I suggest commenting it out for later use.
 * Yes, I think we should keep it. Normally one wouldn't want to include a red-link in a disambiguation page, but since it is part of IEC 60906 and could be a valid article or redirect, I went ahead and included it. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That said, the redirect really should be left pointing to IEC 60320‎ since that will be what most people are looking for when they search for IEC connector. The redirect hatnote pointing to IEC connector (disambiguation) takes care of the other cases (Hatnote). --Tothwolf (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Most people mean IEC 60320 C13 mean they say IEC connector. However I don't think we should redirect to that. I will move the IEC 60320 C13 section on IEC connector (disambiguation) to the top however, to reflect its most common use.
 * Not true. A Google search for "IEC connector" shows the top results as IEC 60320 connectors, not only the C13, but also the C14, C15, C19, and even the C5. This means a redirect to IEC 60320 from is proper and is exactly as Redirect recommends. Also, do not move article content to a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are not articles, they are strictly for disambiguation purposes to help readers find other articles and should not contain article content. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

An apology
Your proper undo: whoops. I mis-read that prior diff, and made an improper undo. Sorry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Apprentice Series Seven
Please don't take the spaces out of the infobox at the top of the article again. The style for the data is to have a space on either side of the "=". The spaces are there ahead of time to ensure the style is followed. Thanks.&mdash;D'Ranged 1 talk 12:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

AWB
Lmatt, I have approved your request for AWB. Please review the Rules of Use, then you can get started! Happy editing! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of AWB
Hello, don't use AWB or any automatic editing tool on pages with signed comments, as you did at AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Graham 87 02:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In hindsight this seems common-sense, but if this is a rule you might want to add it to AWB. In future I will only use AWB in article namespace. Lmatt (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see it as being covered by rules 3 and 5 and this section of the talk page guidelines. It's not an *absolute* rule, as the guideline says ... you can fix disambiguation links or broken redirects on talk pages, for example. But in most cases, signed comments should be left alone. Graham 87 15:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm complaining about your cleanups
Here and here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of your edits look good. Some very nice indeed, like some moves you did. But a few, like this one, seem to be pointless churn and/or harmful scrunching. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"cleanup" of Talk:Bitcoin
The reason I reverted the previous IP edit removal of the one section that you in turn removed again was for several reasons. Significantly, it was an IP edit without explantion. Also, this is the one piece of information that might actually be true (or might not) in terms of the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto and I felt it at least deserved to be in the archives of the talk page. Furthermore, this section had been on the talk page for nearly a month. If you felt it was off-topic, collapsing the section would have been a much better alternative.

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, as it is pointless, but there is a reason I reverted the change and would still be so inclined if it wasn't to get into an edit war. I would hope you would reverse your own actions in this case for these reasons. No, I didn't write this section, and I don't know who did. You may feel it was flaming, but I also don't see the harm of this section on the talk page for at least some kind of follow-up in the future. Given the circumstances, I would have acted differently. --Robert Horning (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up of Passive
Hi Lmatt. You added the tag clean up to the page Passive but did not indicate on the Talk page or in your edit summary what needs cleaning up. I have reordered the items per MOS:DAB and made several other small changes, but since I'm not sure what sort of clean up you had in mind, I have not removed the tag. Cnilep (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

rename to Aluminum wire
Please note that WP:ALUM specifically applies to "articles about chemistry-related topic", not all articles containing the words Aluminum/Aluminium ... for non-chemistry related articles, such as Aluminum wire, standard WP:ENGVAR guidelines apply. Any changes to the article name should be discussed on the article talk page to reach consensus before changing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't think this would be controversial, given that the article on alumin(i)um is titled Aluminium not Aluminum; I didn't see any reasons to prefer the U.S. spelling over the international spelling given that aluminium wire isn't something with special ties to the U.S. However, in hindsight looking at Talk:Aluminium/Spelling it seems the aluminium/aluminum issue was very controversial in the past, but eventually consensus was reached on the IUPAC spelling. Lmatt (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a strong argument for changing the name to Aluminium wire, and I won't argue against it if the discussion is started on the article talk page. But, the existing spelling has existed for over six years, so I believe we should go through the formality of an RfC to establish community consensus before changing the article name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sacramento
I see you proposed a speedy deletion to remove a redirect from Sacramento to Sacramento, California as a routine change in name supported by consensus. Looking at the relevant talk page, there was no such consensus, but rather a clear lack of consensus for a change. I shall regard further attempts to make the change by such mis-representation as disruptive.  DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, unfortunately I didn't read the talk page. I thought existing convention strongly supported a move, but it seems I was badly wrong. My apologies. Lmatt (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Care with ENGVAR
I am glad to see you doing so much clean up. However, using AWB for spelling changes is tricky for words that are spelled differently in U.S. and British English. Before changing a word from one spelling version to another, please determine whether U.S. or British spelling predominates in the article. What's important with varieties of English is that each article use a consistent variety. For example, changing aluminum to aluminium isn't helpful if the article is using U.S. spellings. Consistent spelling of one word between articles is undesirable if it means the articles end up using inconsistent English varieties. I understand that aluminium is a special case since there is a standard spelling for chemistry articles, but that should not be carried over into the rest of the project. Otherwise, keep up the great work! Joja lozzo  15:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite the above warning, you edited Battery (electricity) at 11:59, 10 December 2011. The edit not only violated WP:ENGVAR, it broke the link to aluminum-air batteries. Glrx (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * On reading the MOS for chemistry-related articles (WP:ALUM), it seems that aluminium, sulphur and caesium are correct spellings in all chemistry-related articles, whatever the ENGVAR of the article. Most battery-related articles are chemistry related so ENGVAR may be ignored for these. We must still take care to check ENGVAR when editing non-chemistry-related articles.
 * There never was an aluminum-air batteries article, it's aluminium-air battery. Joja  lozzo  03:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, my edit did not in fact violate WP:ENGVAR? It may be helpful to note the article, Aluminium–air battery has a dash not a hyphen in its title. Lmatt (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In my semi-informed opinion, the MOS says that for chemistry-related articles (and only chemistry-related articles) we should use the British spellings for those three chemical names no matter what the ENGVAR. For articles that are not chemistry-related we should go with the article's ENGVAR. I suggest you not automate spelling corrections for those names to avoid ENGVAR problems in American English articles. You won't make many friends by creating manual work for others due to automating errors. Joja  lozzo  16:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your "aluminum" to "aluminium" edit to the Battery (electricity) article cited above changed a blue link into a red link. It's not so obvious now because I added REDIRECT articles to cover A/B spelling and sing/plural variants (but missed the hypen/dash distinction). So, even if the edit didn't violate ENGVAR, it did damage.
 * I also believe the edit violated ENGVAR. It's not clear to me that a general battery article falls under a chem MOS, but I haven't studied the issue.
 * The simple point is you are breaking things. Are you going to stop the automated B spellings?
 * Glrx (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasons I think Battery (electricity) is a chemistry-related article is 1) from the lead sentence: "An electrical battery is one or more electrochemical cells that convert stored chemical energy into electrical energy." and 2) because it is categorized as Category:Battery (electricity) which is a leaf of the Category:Chemistry tree.


 * I agree that automating ENGVAR changes is troublesome and, when carelessly pursued, could be grounds for revoking the right to use automated tools. Joja  lozzo  14:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, the edit did not in fact violate ENGVAR. However, I should have created the correct redirect at the time (I thought I had done this but the dash/hyphen and plural variations obviously confused me. Lmatt (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

MoS edit
Matt, was there a reason for removing those hard-spaces? Changes are usually discussed first at the talk page of such a major guideline for the project. Tony  (talk)  15:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this was an uncontroversial change. MOS:HEAD says "A primary section heading is written ==Title== ... Spaces between the equal signs and the heading text are optional" So I regularized the spacing throughout MOS Lmatt (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on that text saying "optional" and in regards of the fatc that this is still the Wikipdia default, as you can see for yourself when making a new section on a talkpage (like the header of this section, e.g.), I strongly recommend you stop removing spaces from section headers. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And similarly for blank lines after section headers. There is no good reason to remove these either; many editors prefer them as they make the edit window less cluttered; and you clutter up page histories with trivial edits. Jeh (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Son of autoformatting
This many years down the track, I think it needs to be turned back into an essay. It has no place as a subpage of the MoS. Tony  (talk)  01:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Specification for 'son of autoformatting', I have nominated it for speedy deletion under db-g6 Lmatt (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I see it's already been carried through. Can you tell me about the fiddling with the redirect you just did? Is it something I should be doing? I've never really understood the mechanics. Tony   (talk)  15:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Manual of Style (dates and numbers) was moved to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers I moved the subpages Lmatt (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Welfare rights, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Case management system (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

G6
Please let deletion discussions run a full week. Also, deletion discussions need to be closed by an uninvolved user. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

British spelling in ISO/IEC, JTC 1 articles?
I have my doubts as to the usefulness or validity of adding Use British (Oxford) English to ISO/IEC/JTC1 articles, as you did in. I have removed it from ISO/IEC 9797-1 and ISO/IEC 7810 because I have both of those standards and there's nothing in them to suggest that Oxford spelling is used. In particular, I've reversed your spelling "correction" of annex/annexe to match the spelling used in the standard, in line with the spirit of MOS:TIES and with WP:Engvar. For the other articles I don't have the standards to check, so I haven't removed the "Oxford" template, but I suggest that you probably should, unless you have direct specific knowledge that those standards use Oxford English.

I haven't removed the template from ISO/IEC JTC1 but I have serious doubts that an international organization whose secretariat is the USA would use Oxford spelling. Do you have some reference to support the use of Oxford spelling in this case? Mitch Ames (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:SPELLING gives the ISO and the IEC as examples of international organizations that use British English with "-ize" (Oxford spelling). (see WP:IZE) Lmatt (talk)
 * However, the standards clearly use the annex spelling, which is also present in British (Oxford) English. Since the Oxford dictionary [//oxforddictionaries.com/definition/annex?q=annex] states both annex and annexe as correct, but annexe as chiefly British, annex would be the best spelling to use throughout Wikipedia, per MOS:COMMONALITY. I have reverted my "corrections" of annex to annexe and have explained my reasoning against this correction on the EngVarB talk page. Lmatt (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" redirect pages - please don't
Could you please consider to not "clean up" redirect pages, as you did here? Your edit made it impossible to undo the page move (which was erroneous, as the page title is a proper name, hence all words should be capitalized) without involving an admin. Jeh (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it was the edit summary that was erroneous, it was not a "cleanup" as such, but a categorization per Categorizing redirects. I don't think being unable to move over redirects without involving an admin is an issue, in non-controversial cases I just use the dbmove template and find an admin will delete within a few hours. Lmatt (talk)
 * Consensus does now strongly support a move, but I find your reasoning for stopping categorization of redirects as weak, so I will not reconsider. Also, in future, seek consensus before adding the dbmove template in cases such as these. Lmatt (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the dbmove template back for you :) Lmatt (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the "dbmove" template because I did not consider the revert of the move to be controversial. In fact it seems to me to be quite backwards that a newly-minted name should enjoy "requires consensus to change" status when the original did not.
 * In any case... could you at least agree to holding off on editing auto-created redirect pages, say for a few days? Thereby giving others a chance to "look over" the move? Jeh (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Due to the nature of the semi-automated tool I use to make these changes, it would be difficult to check whether the redirect page was newly created. If a case like this happens again, just use the proper channels to establish consensus. For example, you could have asked the author of the redirect to agree to move was in error (as he now has), then add a db-self template referring to that consensus. You can also contact me and I will support any obvious case such as this. Lmatt (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reason a move like this "requires consensus to change" because the original move effectively expressed a view about about the proper title (which was incorrect), and your view was in conflict with this. So your move requires consensus, however due to the obviousness of this case, not a high standard, maybe just a second editor agreeing with you. Lmatt (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "...it would be difficult to check whether the redirect page was newly created." So, you saved some work for yourself by not using another browser window to check the creation date on the page. And thereby required the involvement of two admins and three or four other editors to vote before the move could be undone. This is not a net win. Jeh (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Checking whether a redirect page is newly created before categorization per Categorizing redirects would make the task take too long as to make it impractical. Using AWB, a semi-automated tool, it is possible to categorize several redirects a minute. Lmatt (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this makes it sound as though you value quantity of edits over quality. Jeh (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit I make a high number of edits. However, I would say quality vs. quantity is a false dichotomy. Some tasks will require more edits to complete then others. That does not have any bearing on their value. Lmatt (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A number of edits for one task wasn't what I was referring to. Anyway, I have no more arguments to offer, so I'm withdrawing. Happy editing. Jeh (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, you could have created less work for yourself by contacting the user that made the erroneous move, asking him to acknowledge the error, then applying the db-move template (or possibly db-self). Lmatt (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this would have been significantly less work for me, since the user had already been contacted and was unresponsive in the short term. It would probably have involved one admin instead of two, once Tony was convinced, but given Tony's prediliction for "downcasing" titles, the convincing would likely have been about the same and needed about as many people. Jeh (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

ISO/IEC standards, categories and list of standards
I notice that you've created some categories for specific standard numbers, eg Category:ISO/IEC_9797. You might care to comment on Talk:List of International Organization for Standardization standards. That discussion (OK, so it's a monologue at the moment, rather than a discussion) relates to the correlation of standard numbers, parts and separate articles. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathdab
Please note that the "template redirects" section of WP:REDIRECT does not say that template redirects should be bypassed; it just says that special care has to be made to take them into account. The general advice of WP:NOTBROKEN applies to template redirects just as much as regular ones.

Two other points:
 * 1) When your edits are reverted, per WP:BRD you should discuss them, not re-do them.
 * 2) Edits such as   violate WP:AWB, which says "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from piped links, bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial."  Please stop immediately, or I will pursue the matter at ANI.

&mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see that WP:NOTBROKEN applies here. That guideline concerns editing "visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects". Transclusions are not links to articles.
 * WP:BRD states "BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow." I saw your revert as incorrect, so reinstated.
 * I don't see editing a template transclusion to a natural language form using AWB as inconsequential, however, I don't wish to argue this, so I will stop. Lmatt (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong version
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VRML&action=historysubmit&diff=468652204&oldid=468648694

Restore it and cleanup. Otherwise verifiability is lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.245.119 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That page is fully protected from editing. I am not an admin so am unable to help. You should request any changes on the article talk page. Lmatt (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Name change without discussion
Please see Talk:Night-watchman_state. CarolMooreDC 00:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:LiveshipTradersTrilogyBooks listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:LiveshipTradersTrilogyBooks. Since you had some involvement with the Template:LiveshipTradersTrilogyBooks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

C Sharp (programming language): Not supplying edit summary
Hello, Lmatt

I see that you have deleted contents from C Sharp (programming language) without supplying an edit summary. Given what I read in the "versions" section the article, your removal seemed highly controversial and so I revert it. But perhaps you would like to explain what you were thinking, in case you'd like to follow up B.R.D. (No pressure though.)

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers in episode lists?
Hi, I see you've been involved in Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Buses
Oi! I have changed the lead of the article to explain what you were trying to get across, so there is really no need to change the rest of the article. It does not meet the format used by all other articles and leads to excess confusion, as you have already pointed out people do not associate Flights Hallmark with anything in Bristol. And to be fair this is only the legal position, if we were to use the legal name of every company no one would have any idea what was what. Mark999 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(Move log); 17:20 . . Lmatt (talk | contribs) moved page Bristol Parkway railway station to Bristol Parkway over redirect ‎(more concise)
This move is bad. ALL railway stations articles for the UK follow a naming convention which (put simply) says "use ... railway station if it's a railway station and that's all, use ... station if more than 1 mode of transport (eg trams, LU, etc). Furthermore, the Bristol Parkway is the M32 motorway. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you provide me a link to the naming convention? I'm having trouble finding it myself. Lmatt (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (UK stations). -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Another reason is for a while there were signs for the Avon Ringroad saying the Bristol Parkway, this is another reason for the naming. Mark999 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Please in future do more research and view similar articles before making "major" edits and moves.

Template: Psychology subscript text?
Your edit to Template:Psychology puts in a leading subscript text for some reason. See Martin Seligman for an example (or the source) RDBrown (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I added that subscript text accidentally, probably by a misplaced click in the edit window. Redrose64 has now removed it. Lmatt (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style (punctuation) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Manual of Style (punctuation). Since you had some involvement with the Manual of Style (punctuation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:STABLE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect STABLE. Since you had some involvement with the WP:STABLE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 05:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Light bulbs listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Light bulbs. Since you had some involvement with the Light bulbs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Lmatt! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  20:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:George Galloway
Not sure what you were going for. The discussion was closed by an administrator, and the argument (WP:TALKCOND) you gave was not a valid argument (read it). Moreover, there is a campaign of harassment against the editor, and I am sure you want to make sure you are not associated with that campaign. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you re-archived the discussion: good. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert, please read
Doug Weller talk 19:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)