User talk:SMC/Archive 4

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call
Melon ‑ Bot  ( STOP! )  18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Downbeat
I need some guidance here. I understand my method of trying to stop the deletion of a disputed category was a bit crude. However, I did not know what to do. I was aware of the dispute only because I was watching this category's page and I am convinced that all the others users or potential users of this new category had no means to know about the dispute. Getting back to your suggestion to directly warn other users, my question to you is: "Which users?" I don't know any of them. This gets us right back to my original question: "How to warn Wikipedians interested in this category that they will lose it?" Catch twenty-two!! Jazzeur (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thanks
Not a problem. Keep up the good work. Hut 8.5 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

just a question
why did you edit my sugababes post, then cancel it??? im confused chau \/ baby 11:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * no problem whatsoever chau \/ baby  13:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

question. on the dame darcy thing, should i completely eliminate the myspace link altogether? she wants it, but if official myspace links are not considered proper for wiki, i need to know, so i can tell her.Toylandgrrrl (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)toylandgrrrl

Dame Darcy again
Toylandgrrrl (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)toylandgrrl She and her bandmate manage it. Until there are more sources out there on Death by Doll, the inclusion is rather important for the article. What do you think?

ah
Hmm, that makes sense. Thanks!Toylandgrrrl (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)toylandgrrrl

RE: Regarding Talk:Apollo Moon Landing hoax theories

 * I did not attack him, I was rephrasing what he said. I didn't say he was an idiot for believing it, I said "one" would have to be an idiot to believe it.  There's a difference between the two, a significant difference.  He never said he believed it, so I couldn't say he believed it, but I was commenting on his comment.  Grammar is my specialty, so don't claim I attacked him.PokeHomsar (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, I'm removing the quote, as someone skimming the page might read it as a warning to you. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone skimming your talk page. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hiya :)"
Did you put that on the top of your userpage or is it vandalism? Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it does look like something a vandal from a school IP would write, regards, Joshuarooney2008 (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

saint george
SMC, i would like to inform you that i ave never visted Saint george'spage, let alone edit his page. you must have an error with your sytem of acquiring users IP adresses as this was not me.

thankyou 58.179.44.222 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bert Copple
An editor has nominated Bert Copple, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR Dmod - Cave Clan article
In reply to your message, if you feel that the user is causing serious difficulty by his behaviour, open a request for comment. If you feel that the article is being disrupted by edit warring, open a request for protection. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit my paragraphs
My paragraph China Life Insurance Company (Taiwan) is not rubbish passage. I am editing right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky@36 (talk • contribs) Please don't be sensitive on new paragraphs next time, thanks! Sometimes administrator's warnings do not make sense, i.e. they like to issue meaningless warnings! You may rather refer to users' records on adding and editing the paragraphs to decide whether the paragraphs are rubbish. Maybe I use more preview functions to edit the paragraphs next time.

I have finished editing China Life Insurance Company (Taiwan). Please check it. Ricky@36 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

hiya i'm new to this i just wanted to start my article and save it can i please have time to alter it Sammymakes (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:NYPD_Blue_Medavoy.JPG
I have tagged Image:NYPD_Blue_Medavoy.JPG as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BacCrest.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BacCrest.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation
Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!

Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 03:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good faith edits
I think that this edit here may have been in good faith rather than vandalism. Even though it took away from the page, the person that edited may have been trying to help out the page. It was the right decision to change the page back, but I personally thing it might have been better to tell the person how to go about editing next time instead of warning them for vandalism. Thanks,  KJS77 Join the Revolution  00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing
I understand the removal, but it was re-organizing the article more effectively. Citing the review rather than listing it as a link. Furthermore, I un-did your undo, as the reception is a more balanced artice, 2 (-) and 2 (+) with equally citied sources. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.248.152 (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi There,

I'm just sending a quick message in regards to reverting the changes for the Aurora Community Channel page. I think that you are incorrectly reverting the information and here are the reasons why: 1/ Aurora Community Channel was not originally created by Marque Owen - it was created by a gentleman named Michael Kelly. Marque Owen was hired to be the first CEO once the channel was created. 2/ Aurora does hold a subscription tv licence to broadcast on Foxtel, Austar and Optus as a community channel. The reason why Aurora does not hold the same licence as the free to air community channels is because Aurora does not operate in the same realm as these channels, or Satellite Community Television and Australian Multicultural Television for that matter. Aurora is carried on a digital signal while the free to air community channels are analogue. Therefore, the comparisions made between them and the comment about the free to air channels contesting Aurora's use of the term "Community Television" are irrelevant as in the digital spectrum, Aurora is licenced as a Community Channel. 3/ Aurora is not in competition with the free to air community channels as the following sentence would imply: "Some of these broadcasters have attempted to reduce supply of programming to Aurora by requesting collective exclusive rights to some third party productions" - Aurora does play content that is shown on the free to air Community Channels. 4/ There is a subscription fee involved to access UBI World TV - the sentence regarding UBI World TV in the Aurora Community Channel article implies that UBI World TV is available as a free to air channel - this is incorrect considering there is a subscription fee involved. 5/ The box at the bottom of the article "Community televison in Australia" is not relevant to Aurora Community Channel, for as I have previously mentioned, Aurora is operating in a different realm to the free to air Community Channels. 6/ The information in the article that keeps being reverted is not incorrect - Aurora is an independent not for profit channel on the digital platform that is available to over 6 million Australians.

Many Thanks 144.131.131.241 (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

About Article Pilibhit
Hi,

I have made changes as Pinkadelica has asked me in order to maintained the editing standards, please remove Tag for clean up. I assure you that this is a well reserched article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.67.121 (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply
What do you mean by If you could please point me to the diff where this user's edit occurred?. You could check history edit of the page. I have a request, for Template:History of Cambodia, if you want to put AD, then just put it in Funan box, before 68, the events after that don't need AD part, like many other templates. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts to Wonder Girls
Hey, just so you know, the removal of content isn't always vandalism. There's a difference between unconstructiveness and blatant vandalism (which is really what Huggle was designed for). The content being removed persistenly by that IP was unreferenced and probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyway. Please be more careful and review your actions here thanks, —— RyanLupin • (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What I was concerned about was that the edits never specified why the content was being removed, and I felt that the deleted content was actually of reasonably good quality. That particular diff indicates three referenced paragraphs within that section that the user deleted indiscriminately. Granted, there was a small amount of unreferenced content there - but there was no reason to blank the entire section, referenced and unreferenced parts alike. Could you please explain your reasoning, as I'm not quite sure why this particular content removal is deemed correct. Thanks. SMC (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That user was just blocked for 1 day - . SMC (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, granted there were sourced material also removed but rollbacking and slapping a default vandal tag on the IP's talkpage doesn't assume good faith, the editor may have been trying to move the article around. I was watching it all on huggle, as soon as content was removed, you reverted within seconds. For these scenarios, it's advised that you leave a custom edit sommary and warn them about removing content rather than just pressing the standard "revert and warn" button. We scare a lot of potential editors away like this. I saw the user was blocked and I was hoping to place a clerk note on your AIV report asking the Admin to review the situation but it all happened too quickly. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving a custom edit summary is a good idea, and I'll take that on board. The only thing is that the first level warning of blank is actually more assuming good faith than anything else; the warnings were ignored completely - no edit summary was provided, no user talk page message, just "fight the rollback". I've made mistakes before with users moving content around (with the content being relocated elsewhere on the page within the same edit) and I've corrected those mistakes. In this case, however, my reverting was fast because the content was placed *nowhere* else, the edit had severely damaged the page, no edit summary was provided, and frankly, it *did* appear to be straightforward vandalism. Either the user ignored the "new messages" warning at the top of the page (which would have well and truly appeared by the time of their second edit) or read the message and chose to ignore it. WP:AGF can only go so far. The timing of my rollbacks is not really the issue here, since those first two warnings would have been rather obvious (in terms of both presence and meaning). Assuming good faith is all well and good, but when the editor completely ignores talk page warnings whilst damaging an article, *something* needs to be done, which, unless I am mistaken, is why the warning templates and AIV exist. That said, I do believe the custom edit summary is a good suggestion. SMC (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback at Gary Herbert
SMC,

I see here that you rolled back nineteen edits by anon editor 98.202.92.59. Judging by the time stamps, it would appear that you were reacting only to this edit, which makes me wonder, why you were rolling back at all? Now of course, these things are somewhat subjective. I can certainly understand undoing that edit; after all, there are those (not myself, I admit), who object to that appellation, but I hardly think that its usage constitutes vandalism. Still, these things are a matter of opinion.

But it is specifically because this is such a borderline issue that we might want to consider whether or not rollback (which, after all, labels the one rolled back as a vandal) is the approach to take. For if you had gone back further in those nineteen edits, I think that the good faith of the editor would have been demonstrated. Indeed, by rolling him back, you re-introduced at least two misspellings that the anon had fixed, as well as deleted several citations for material in the article.

Of course, I'm sure that this was not your intention. And I'm quite sure that, given sufficient review of my use of rollback, that I too have likely erred a few times (indeed, I have caught and corrected myself at least twice that I can remember). I only point it out because it's been over 24 hours now, and there's no sign that you've caught it. My only suggestion would be to reconsider any possible hypersensativity that you may possess about that one issue, over which good people can honestly disagree. Happy editing. Unschool (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) I correct my errors as soon as I notice them, so I really appreciate your pointing out this major oversight. SMC (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my edits to Chris Merritt's page
Hello there. I was wondering why you reverted my edit to Chris' page? I run these pages with his blessing and he is a friend of mine. I was meaning no harm. Can you enlighten me please? Pirateking1121 (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was concerned about the fact that you were promoting the MySpace/Facebook groups, and using Wikipedia as an advertising medium (WP:SOAP). It may be worthwhile adding a single mention about the existence of an official fan group, but not an entire section. Additionally, you have revealed you may have a conflict of interest due to your real life relationship with the article subject (Chris Merritt). You mentioned that you run these pages "with his blessing" - I'm not sure if you're referring to Wikipedia here, then you should be aware (and this ties in with the conflict of interest) that you do not own Wikipedia articles. In summary: it's probably okay to include a single mention, not a whole section, about an official fan group, but be careful (in general) to keep a neutral tone in your writing on this particular article. Thanks. SMC (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

re
I was reverting the anon user's vandalism, something about a mr miller being a redneck. But Apparently I reverted to a previous already vandalized version of the article ! (please see talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maxis_ftw) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxis ftw (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. BTW, you take down vandals at the speed of light! :) Maxis ftw (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
OOOO thank you very much! Much appreciated :) ——Possum (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Grexy
Ehh.. I CSD'd it under the WP:DUCK hypothesis. No point in letting it sit around at AfD (even if the consensus seemed to be unanimous. I didn't think it was particularly bold, but thank you! :) Prince of Canadat 12:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for tracking vandals! A4democracy (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

my talk page
Why did you revert his edit, then revert your own? --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 05:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok.. I was just curious, and kinda boggled there for a second :P --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 05:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to ACC admins
Confirming that it's me who is requesting usage of the AC tool. SMC (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and/or the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for your participating in the account creation process. -  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The message you left about "my" recent change to Moses
Um ... I think you have the wrong IP address, dude. 98.64.66.252 (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever. Point is, you got the wrong person. Surely there is a better way to keep track of who does what around here if IP addresses work that way, which is not a new thing. 98.64.66.252 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)