User talk:Martin IIIa/Archive 1

Pandemonium
I partially undid your edit here as no explanation was given for the deletion of the memory card section. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 21:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I just deleted it because it seems like a misleading statement(as prior to Pandemonium! there were more console games which used a password system than ones which used memory cards) and because it doesn't really add anything to the article. Since you seem to be a caretaker for the article, I bow to your judgment that it should be left in.Martin IIIa (talk) 24:??, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was more that it was unexplained than anything. I don't remember much of the game (I was five when it came out) and I had the PC version anyway. If most of the other games that were released at the time had passwords, then delete it. If not, I think we should keep it in. And I'm not really a caretaker, at least, not any more than you are since Wikipedia is editable by all. I just seem to be the only one to watch the page anymore... -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think at the time of the game's release console games had mostly gone over to the save system, so there's nothing really wrong with the part I had deleted. I just was worried it would give people the impression that the password system in Pandemonium! was a new thing, when before the mid-90s it was the most primary way to save games' progress. And you are a caretaker in the sense that you've obviously been looking over the article for a while and thus have a decent sense of how it flows and such, whereas I just stumbled on the article two days ago.
 * You played Pandemonium! when you were five? Yikes. I first played it when I was about 20, and consider it one of the hardest games I've ever played.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I only ever beat the game once. :) After that, it got uninstalled, reinstalled and I could never quite make it to the Wishing Engine again. I managed Pandemonium 2 every time though and I miss them (didn't work on XP so I sold them along with a lot of other favourite games that I feel horribly nostalgic for). They need to release the games because I loved them and it's so amazingly hard to find a copy nowadays.
 * I rewrote it here. I think that should probably do it. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 15:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviews
Sure thing; check your e-mail! Also, did you mean the review for the Atari Lynx console itself (from Dragon #155)? BOZ (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - glad to help. :) BOZ (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Doom
No need to thank for it, buddy. After all, it's "our duty" to help improve the Wikipedia and its articles, right? I'm just glad of being able to contribute. ;) See ya' around. — Holothurion (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Citations in plot summaries
Sorry, the "no citations needed to write a plot summary from a primary source (ie the work itself)" is an implicit rule on the site (you see it on Discussion pages a lot), so it's not codified anywhere. You can read all of the explicit Wikipedia guidelines on plot summaries at How to write a plot summary. If someone argues about it, I just point to Encyclopedia Britannica, which only cites direct quotations from works of literature and film, and also to that summary guideline, which has no rule stating primary sources must be cited.Kthejoker (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Total Eclipse
Finally got back to the Total Eclipse 3DO release date issue and added my sources to the discussion page. Sorry for the delay. Brideck (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

gamate
Hi. I'm working to produce a quality page here (as most online resources are out of date and factually incorrect). I feel that some of your edits are a bit over zealous. Could you calm down a bit, and let's collaborate on this thing? I don't know very much about proper formatting, and could use some guidance. (talk)
 * Hello. Saw this from a program. You can start by checking out Manual of style.. it's pretty elaborate and the rule of thumb for formatting articles. –  Tommy  [ message ] 14:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I explained all the issues relating to the recent edits to the Gamate article on Talk: Gamate, so I'm not sure what you want me to add to that. I've been perfectly calm throughout my history of editing that article, so there's nothing I can change on that front.
 * As far as formatting, I concur with Tommy about checking out the Manual of Style. Also, I've found it very useful to take a look at the formatting for similar articles by clicking on "Edit" and comparing the coding and spacing in what you see there with what appears on the article.  If possible, stick to A-Class articles for reference.  Hope that helps.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An Apology
First off I would like to apologize for coming across as insulting. However you should realize that my response was largely due to the fact that you were continually attacking my claims in response to the Dreamcast without backing up any of them, instead claiming that everything I had said was a lie and misinformation: "I won't even bother addressing your other lies. Since this matter has started you've done nothing but make disruptive edits, post false information, and otherwise flaunt your open disregard for Wikipedia's rules. I really hope you're not planning to keep working on Wikipedia for long, as behavior like yours tends to lead to getting indefinitely blocked."(emphasis mine) I would like to ask that you apologize back for continually stating that my info was incorrect or that if you won't that you at least provide me a single example of something I said in reference to the Dreamcast article which was incorrect. Cheers.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, just do yourself a favor and read up on Wikipedia's conduct policies. They really do provide good guidance.


 * I didn't back up my refutation of your claims because there was no need. Most people who have heard of the Dreamcast would already know that your claims are false; for the others, as I already posted on the Gamecube talk page, they can get the facts from any reliable source covering the Dreamcast. It's pretty common info. If you're not willing to look it up yourself, well, I don't know what else to say.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Nintendo GameCube, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  15:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea to examine an edit before you revert it and accuse the editor of destructive edits. In fact, I was reversing an edit by Wikiposter0123 in which he edited my comments - which, as you just noted, is generally forbidden by Wikipedia. So in essence, you've become guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of doing. Also, it's a good idea to do a brief check of the article's history, in which you can see that I directed Wikiposter0123 to an article on proper talk page editing, but he remains antagonistic. I'm actually at the point where I believe I'll have to report the incident to administrators in order to prevent the page from permanently recording my posts as having been made by Wikiposter0123. Again, try to be more careful in the future.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, I just noticed the talk page reverts in question. It appears that Wikiposter0123 was trying to make a good-faith attempt to reply to some of the things that you said. So rather than simply revert Wikiposter0123, a more appropriate course of action would have been to insert  Martin IIIa  immediately before each interruption to your message if Wikiposter0123 didn't do so. Just thought I should let you know. ;) -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 19:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a nice suggestion, and under ordinary circumstances that's exactly what I would have done. However, Wikiposter0123 had been making disruptive edits to the same talk page and its corresponding article for several days, and it is more than likely that his edit to my talk pages was just a continuation of this behavior. And note that the edit you're suggesting is technically against Wikipedia policy, since it is an edit or Wikiposter0123's post; thus, this would have simply given him an opening to cry foul and further drag out his disruption.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: he cited WP:SIGCLEAN stating "Your edit falsified the sigs/time stamps for the page." which I understood as changing the date on my posts to mislead editors as to when I was posting. Forgive me for misreading that, but from my point of view Martin has continually mocked and attacked me for "posting false information" about the Dreamcast even after I have proven the info to be correct and it just seems to me now that he is trying to prevent me from responding to him with multiple threats of indef blocks. I have never seen the Martin IIIa and have only seen editors respond to others comments the way I did just now. I would have been happy to add that if I had know about it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (1)Had you merely clicked on the link I provided you when you first made your edit to my comments, you would have seen the nowiki.
 * (2)There was no mocking or attacking; I simply directed people to check reliable sources rather than accept your false statements. If you interpret correcting anything you say to be an attack, then I suggest you avoid posting anything on the internet.
 * (3)You didn't prove anything to be correct. You simply threw a fit and claimed that all reliable sources dealing with the Dreamcast are false, and when that failed to get a rise out of anyone, you proceeded to flip your own statements around.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Two cents here - (following the long ANI post)
 * Martin:
 * Him inserting his comments into the middle of your long comments is not "editing your comments". It's hard to follow and doing it without the interrupted tag (as indicated above) is highly suboptimal.  But it's not editing your comments.  He was commenting, in response to yours.
 * Your removing his comments like that was in fact a violation of policy.
 * I believe that you meant well, but on that point he merely needed some education on editing and formatting etiquette, and you're technically the one who violated policy.
 * I don't see that by itself this rises to the level of requiring admin intervention, but please don't do it again.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Georgewilliamherbert, I suggest that you stop inventing your own rules for Wikipedia and start looking at what official Wikipedia policy says. Also, a quick look at the history page will show that I provided the education you refer to, and Wikiposter0123 blatantly ignored it and continued with his revert warring.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it requires admin intervention either, but I am afraid he is going to report me and start a ban discussion against me and I would just like to get this resolved.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, why would you fear that after you've stopped the disruptive behavior that would have required me to report the incident to administrators? The history page for Talk: Nintendo GameCube shows that you fixed your disruptive edit hours before you made the above post. As I believe I've told you, the process for reporting an incident is tiresome and depressing, and I prefer to not have to go through with it, despite the fact that it does get results(in my experience).--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Weis and Penrod
No problem; I am glad to have helped out in that area. Good luck on the Weis and Penrod pages. I think I'll add them to my watchlist. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 03:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Airconditioning
Most of your edits of Curved Air albums have left the "Reception" paragraph appearing blank User:RGCorris|RGCorris]] (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relax, I'm getting to it. Good(or even halfway decent) Wikipedia articles don't just appear overnight, and for the moment the first concern is replacing the deprecated infobox review template with the standard review template and "Reception" section.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having just had an article deleted within minutes of creating it, you are running the risk of some over-zealous editor zapping your work (or reverting to a previous edit) if you leave it half-done. RGCorris (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Every edit runs the risk of being reverted by another editor. In fact, edits which add actual content are far more likely to be reverted than edits which simply fix a formatting problem.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't know who told you that an article I created was deleted within minutes of my creating it, but that is completely false. No article I've created has ever been deleted, much less "within minutes of creating it".--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not your article, mine RGCorris (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You might like to look at : [Probable spam link removed. - Martin III]  RGCorris (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I make a habit of not clicking on random links that people send me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Airconditioning dispute on DRN
Hi there, this is just a note to say I left a response at WP:DRN. All the best. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Сurved Air
Well done! Now I see how messy my 'everything goes'-version was. But your no-frills sort of attitude, frankly, looks like another extreme. Are you sure details (like the band having been pulled off stage in Boston) should necessarily perish, and why? I'm in no way inclined to dispute anything, just wondering. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed that you're taking this in stride. I hadn't realized until now that most of the expansion of the article was your work, and I know how aggravating it can be when your work is removed by another editor.
 * My editing instincts can be compared to that of a razor, and at times I get a bit caught up and remove something which should have simply been moved to another part of the article or reworked a bit. As to the band being pulled off stage in Boston, though, my concern was with how far we can trust Francis Monkman's hypothesis as to the reason. Certain things said by musicians in interviews have to be taken with a grain of salt, and the two main phrases which set off an alarm in my head are "The reason So-and-so left the band is" and "because they were afraid we'd upstage them." There are many reasons Curved Air might have been taken off stage, and fear that they would upstage the main act isn't one of the more likely ones. I'd feel better about leaving that bit in there(or, now that I've removed it, adding it back in) if we could find a source supporting Francis's theory. Unfortunately, my resources are a bit limited; of the four non-online sources I have covering Curved Air, two deal almost solely with 1974-76, and the other two don't have much in the way of details. I'll see what I can dig up, though, and if you find anything, feel free to add that bit back in yourself.
 * Please let me know if you see anything else you think I've removed too hastily.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no, I totally accept your point. Some of the things removed were hardly significant, others would fit into some satellite entries like Phantasmagoria or, come to think of it, Francis Monkman, should they ever be expanded (or, in the case of Back Street Luv, created). I tend to get carried away with quantities, frankly, so any quality-improving treatment with me is very welcome. And you trimmed the article down into looking perfectly nice and neat. -- Evermore2 (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Iron Butterfly Metamorphosis Page
I have been trying to fix the error on the page for a while now. I am a member of Iron Butterfly and it is concerning that people keep reverting the page to be incorrect.

Mike Pinera & El Rhino were members of the band from the start of sessions of Metamorphosis. They replaced Erik Braunn when he left the band. Richie & Bill were session musicians on 2 tracks (Soldier In Our Town and Slower Than Guns) Though it is confusing to some, the name of the album was to highlight them, not to imply that they weren't part of the band. Please fix this the proper way.


 * It isn't the name of the album which indicates that Pinera and Rhino weren't members of Iron Butterfly at the time(though the name is certainly suggestive, particularly the fact that it's "Iron Butterfly WITH", rather than "featuring", which is the term generally used when a record label wants to highlight individual members). It's the songwriting credits. On the album itself, even on the label, the songs are ambiguously credited as "written by Iron Butterfly", with Robert Woods Edmonson contributing lyrics to a few songs. I checked out all nine songs in BMI's records, and every single one is listed as by either "Bushy Ron / Dorman Lee / Ingle Doug" or "Bushy Ron / Dorman Lee / Edmonson Robert Woods / Ingle Doug". So in the songwriting credits, Iron Butterfly corresponds to Bushy, Dorman, and Ingle. Also, while it's possible that all nine songs were genuine collaborations between Bushy, Dorman, and Ingle, given Iron Butterfly's history, it's far more likely that this is a typical case of a band agreeing to evenly split royalties on all songs. So if Pinera and Rhino were part of the band at the time, that raises the question: Why were they cut out of the deal?


 * I freely admit that I find the way Mike Pinera and El Rhino are credited on the album to be very puzzling, and it doesn't help that biographers (understandably) prefer to keep things simple and just say that Pinera and Rhino were already official members at the time of Metamorphosis. I imagine they could have joined the band but been credited as non-members due to contractual issues or some such, but until we find a good source with an alternate explanation for why the songwriting credits identify Iron Butterfly as a trio, I'm not comfortable with the article saying that they were members with no explanation beyond that.


 * By the way, whether or not it's actually true, I'd avoid telling people on Wikipedia that you're a member of Iron Butterfly. While it might seem to add credibility to your edits, in actuality it's more likely to arouse suspicions of Conflict of Interest.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The liner notes of the reissue of Metamorphosis clearly make it point to the fact that they were members, not hired guns. In addition, Pinera was the main writer of Best Years Of Our Lives & Butterfly Bleu. Rhino wrote Stone Believer. (Proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3hYflFep-8)

Besides, I dont know of ANY group who had session musicians sing on a large part of their album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.48.73.42 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of who actually wrote the songs, they're officially registered as the work of Ingle/Bushy/Dorman, and due to legal issues, the official composers are what album sleeves use for their credits.


 * The Chieftans, Mike + The Mechanics, and the Wes Minster Five are just a few of the many groups who commonly used sessionists to perform their lead vocals.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * }


 * Wow, is this ever belated! Appreciated, though. I've already at least perused most of the articles linked above, but it is nice to have them in a handy table for easy reference.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Genesis
Some nice tidying up there, cheers. MrMarmite (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, man!--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Supertramp
Please stop trying to rig the Hodgson article. It's a fan-given nickname, as many fans see him as the man who defined Supertramp. There's a reputable cite to support it, and Hodgson himself has posted a newspaper article to his own website where he is referred to as Mr. Supertramp (http://www.rogerhodgson.com/documents/297.html) I understand that you're passionate about the band, but don't let your bias get in the way of things. 2.219.215.227 (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me give you the straight deal: The "Mr. Supertramp" deal has proven controversial on Wikipedia. Some editors want to attribute it to one reason, some want to attribute it to another, some don't want the name mentioned in the article at all, and since neither of the cited sources provide a reason, no side holds a reasonable advantage. Right now I'm the only one upkeeping the Supertramp articles, so it's up to me to deal with this nonsense every time it crops up. And frankly, I'm not good at dispute moderation, and have much more productive things to do with my time on Wikipedia than settle trivial arguments. So the most sensible thing to do, until we get a source that actually identifies the reason for the nickname, is to leave it out; people can't argue over the reason behind the name if they don't see it in the article. Moreover, it's a sensible resolution even aside from the dispute, since without a reason behind it, all "Mr. Supertramp" is is a nickname that, if used in a newspaper article, wouldn't be recognized by the overwhelming majority of readers. The WP article on Paul McCartney himself doesn't even mention the nickname "Macca" anywhere, much less in the lead section. The "Mr. Supertramp" name by itself simply isn't worth starting a massive dispute over.


 * Also, I'd see about curing your knee-jerk reaction to accuse anyone who disputes your edits of being biased and "trying to rig the article". Besides being blatantly contrary to one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, it makes you look incredibly suspicious.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Phil Collins. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to make of this, since I do provide edit summaries whenever my intentions are less than blindingly obvious. I can only guess that the above was posted by mistake.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012
Thanks for your help editing Brain Salad Surgery; I'll use the quoting format you noted from now on.

Steely Dan
Good work on the Steely Dan article trim, it needed that. The only deletion that you made that I would contend is the info surrounding the loss of "The Second Arrangement", which I think is important to mention in describing the frustrating recording process surrounding Gaucho. If you don't object, I will reinstate that. Cheers, CCS81 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! As far as "The Second Arrangment", I see your point. However, I think that paragraph as written wasn't clearly making the point that you describe, and went on for too long about a song that was never even released. I just trimmed the same info on the Gaucho article, since it devoted a whole sentence to explaining who told Fagen something, and another sentence to describing the same reaction that anyone would have assumed he'd have. It also contradicts itself by saying it was the first track finished, and then going on to say it was never finished at all. So I'd shorten it up to more of a summary of the incident when you reinstate it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds good. I will see if I can get the job done in a sentence, two tops.  Cheers, CCS81 (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Iron Butterfly
Hi. I saw your posts on a discussion page. I have added this link to the Bestselling albums discussion page, as well as the discussion page of a frequent editor there(it's locked), but both have been ignored. . 41.132.116.62 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been looking over the article in question and its talk page, but I'm still a bit confused. What exactly do you want me to do?--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The article List of bestselling albums lists the album as "25 million" copies sold. The link listed here is a WP:RS, which states "30 million" copies sold. Thus, using this WP:RS the album in question could be moved up the list to the 30 million mark. 41.132.116.62 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"Removed review material"
Would you please explain what the edit summary "Removed review material" is about? You are removing sourced, cited material about the song's sound and thematic content, which is the main subject of an article about the song. All else - the chart rankings, the versions by other artists, etc., is secondary to the actual description of the song and its original recording. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As examples of Featured Articles - heavily reviewed and considered the best of the best - about songs, look at Like a Rolling Stone, Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), and Hey Jude, just to pick three. All contain extensive sections - much longer than in the Animals songs you are deleting material from - that describe the musical content and lyrical themes and recorded performances of the songs.  So again, what does "review material" mean to you?  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Statements like "As laid down "It's My Life" was a natural fit for the Animals." aren't describing the song's sound or thematic content; they're subjectively commenting on the song's quality. The fact that someone made such subjective commentary is verifiable, but not the subjective commentary itself, so sticking references in front of such statements doesn't help. You'd do well to refer to your own examples. I haven't looked much at the other two, but Hey Jude is a good example of how an encyclopedia article should discuss a song's content. Note that its statements are all precise and indisputable, whereas the statements I removed from It's My Life (The Animals song) are vague and sometimes aggrandizing.
 * Hope that helps. By the way, I'd be wary of assuming that anything in a Featured Article is considered exemplary content. Articles aren't continuously reassessed, and an article may not be reviewed for five years or more after being given Featured Article status. Even assuming content hasn't deprecated in that time, standards for Featured Articles were a lot lower in 2007 than they are today. I've seen content that was given FA status which wouldn't have even passed B-class standards today.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I realize that different editors on music articles have different ideas of where the objective/subjective line is; mine is a bit more liberal than yours.  But I have rewritten the main part of the text you removed.  All subjective evaluations are now attributed in-text, while what remains is objective fact ("The Animals recording was propelled by a bass guitar riff from Chas Chandler, soon joined by an electric twelve-string guitar riff from Hilton Valentine", "lead singer Eric Burdon's low-pitched, gruff vocal", etc).  See what you think.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User page, so very, very red
Hi, you do a lot of work on musical articles which matter very much to me personally.

Could you possibly create a user page? Pretty please?

Sincerely, User:Varlaam (blocked). 99.238.134.143 (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maximum Surge
Just so you'll know the next time... It's best to tag dead links with the dead link tag rather than remove them. We have many users and bots who can often find archived copies of the pages in question. Stay well, and happy editing! :) -- WikHead (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! I had no idea WP had bots that could do that. One more useful tool for my editing kit! :) --Martin IIIa (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're most certainly welcome Martin . Thanks to the archiving services, we don't always have to lose our valuable references once the source is no longer available. A very genius idea indeed! All the best, -- WikHead (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Foxtrot (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miniature (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) 04:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Pamela (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tom Scott


 * Stop Loving You (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tom Scott

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking care of the vandalism.
Those edits that you reverted are people editing in a public building's IP. I promise I will take care of it and notify someone in the area about it. 98.100.200.66 (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)