User talk:Megaboz

carbon
Sorry. It looks like we were both trying to fix carbon at the same time. Is everything corrected now? ChemNerd (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is still a broken reference - besides that I think everything is cleaned up. I haven't been able to determine where the ref is supposed to be pointing --Megaboz (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking back through the history, I can't find that reference either. ChemNerd (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I will go and remove that ref, and also mention it on the talk page --Megaboz (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

University of Maryland Medical Center
Hi Megaboz:

I created the University of Maryland Medical Center page, which I see that you edited. Did you add the callouts about the article reading like a news release, as well as the one about it relying primarily on a single source?

I've gone in and revised the content heavily in an attempt to meet Wikipedia's guidelines in both cases. If you agree, are you able to remove these references, or is there another way I need to go about this.

Thanks in advance for your help with this.

Ummcweb (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the style of the article is much improved. Good work on taking the time to find more references.  I went ahead and took off the warning templates. --Megaboz (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment
I'm new, so please forgive me if I am ignorant to Wikipedia guidelines. (Which I love and read just about daily). I've read the talk feedback. I think I can tighten up my content. I think I wanted to accomplish 2 things: 1.) RRSUX has lost membership due to moderator difficulties.  2.) Anti-Rachael sentismism still exists and if the RRSUX site is not the premier home for dissentators, at least they know they are not alone. I really tried to be tactful in my comments and not get into the whole drama, although it is well documented at the Bored Board. I just think it is wrong to let people think there is an anti-Rachael site with 1900 some members, when really it is only 8 active members and maybe 50 members at the new site. I'll do a rewrite more within the guidelines, if you like. Inglettv (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Studio job
Nice work on the rewrite of this article. I've withdrawn the AfD based on its much improved state. I would like to see more reference for the awards, but that's not a reason to ask for deletion of the article; I think you've found sufficient sources to indicate some level of notability. Thanks for your contributions! Frank |  talk  18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.
 * Thanks, I'll be sure to use it carefully --Megaboz (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Megaboz, belated post holiday thanks for your review, trust and support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin. There's also a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here.  Were Spiel  Chequers  22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"declining" speedy deletions
Hi there. I just wanted to tell you to avoid edit-summaries like here. You are allowed to remove speedy tags you think are incorrect (and you are encouraged to do so even), but please do not use the word "decline" or "deny" when doing so. Per WP:CSD only admins can decide to decline (or deny) deletion (which is not only removing the tag but an administrative decision that carries some weight as it's usually binding for other admins and retagging multiple times after an admin decided can be sanctioned). Just avoid to use words like that please. Regards  So Why  10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably picked that phrasing up from someone else's edit summary and wasn't aware it implied adminship. In the future I'll use different language. –Megaboz (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)