User talk:Sunshine4921

Any complaints? Please visit the talk page of my main account found here.

Wrong warning
I know it was my mistake, but that warning you left on my talk page, was wrong. We reverted at the same time, and thus my edit looked like vandalism here. But I fixed that, and hopefully you won't mind if I delete your mistake warning. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's fine if you delete it. Sunshine4921 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:warning
Hi - I don't understand getting an automated warning for reverting vandalism myself - I'm assuming it was a mistake. Shiva  (Visnu)  19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that I was clicking the spacebar and Huggle lagged so when I saw that edit and then I reverted, but you did first so I warned you somehow. I'm not sure. Derild  49  21  ☼  21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong warning
Hello. I assume the warning you recently put on my talk page is mistaken, as I was reverting vandalism, and the link in it shows an edit, where I was reverting, not adding vandalism. Hope you don't mind if I delete it. :) DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AHHH!! So sorry again! I really need to get used to Huggle! Derild  49  21  ☼  20:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your mistake
I am not happy by your cruelty. I made a factual and appropriate edit to an article you called it "vandalism". I cannot accept your apologiea at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.216.212 (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but what mistake? According to your page history. I never edited your page. If I really did make a mistake it would be different, but WP:assume good faith. Derild  49  21  ☼  21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate you
You, Sunshine 4921 made a gargantuan mistake. I have much respect for wikipedia and its OTHER associates, but the scum of you is flat-out sickening! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.216.212 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks please. If I have made a mistake, please direct me to it. I have found no evidence I have reverted any of your edits. Derild  49  21  ☼  00:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I can explain
Sunshine,

I don't have a talk page. I edited an article. I am sorry I got so mean about it. Please Forgive me. You made a teeny-tiny mistake, but this was partially my fault. I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.216.212 (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine, but you do have a talk page. here. Derild  49  21  ☼  01:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple Question
Some say wikipedia is inaccurate and unreliable. I thought it was a site anyone can edit, but improperties would be removed to match the facts. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.216.212 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is both, anyone can edit Wikipedia. But when it comes down, the most important thing is this. We are trying to build a free encyclopedia with the world's knowledge. At the same time, not everything is considered "knowledge". IMO, only useful information is necessary. Wikipedia is not nearly as inaccurate as people think, though there have been exceptions where someone managed to add inaccuracies in without other editors finding out before it was too late. WP:BLP was created because someone managed to mess up and have a person's article. Derild  49  21  ☼  15:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Donations
I'm wondering why wikipedia would need money. It is an amazing website that any can add to without profitable issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.216.212 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's because while it's run by volunteers, the site does not have any advertisements at all so the only way to have money to pay off "internet rent" or something like that is to get donations in. Derild  49  21  ☼  21:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, Just Maybe
Maybe I could help. I would love to advertise for Wikipedia. I am not sure how I should do it, though. What do you think? If Wikipedia is proven accurate, then loads of people would love and use it. If there is anything I can do, please let me know71.132.216.212 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
 * The thing is Wikipedia doesn't really need advertising. It's already well known around the world and is one of the most visited pages. However the general stereotype is that it is unreliable due to the fact anyone can edit it. As you know however, there are users who work in seeding out un-notable pages and taking out controversial information and vandalizing pages. The only way to prove it is accurate is to improve the quality of the articles. Continually. So to help, please cleanup articles, expand them and bring them up to WP:GA or WP:FA. Of course not all articles can reach this, but anything to improve the quality is useful. Derild  49  21  ☼  22:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Accounts
I am thinking of opening up an account. Are there any benefits in doing so? Do I have to pay? Will I receive loads of bizarre emails from Wikipedia?71.132.216.212 (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, you don't even have to give your email if you don't want. Having an account allows you to create articles and edit semiprotected pages after 10 edits and 4 days. Try reading Why create an account? for a full list of benefits. Derild  49  21  ☼  01:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk Pages
Do celebrities have wikipedia talk pages? If so, please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.200.159 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As it talk pages for their article or for an account they might own? Yes, they do have talk pages for the article, but it is impossible to find out if a celebrity is indeed using a Wikipedia account as a person can pick any username as long as it is not already used. Sunshine4921 (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Biting the newcomers
This edit and your subsequent templating of the IP violate WP:BITE - the IP was making a good faith attempt to mention the comic was now being continued at the garfield website. Exxolon (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, thought that was a spam link to some kind of government article. Derild  49  21  ☼  18:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem warning
Hi there! Just a heads up, you issued an incorrect warning at User_talk:Justadream14. The editor blanked their own article, so it has now been tagged as WP:G7. You should remove your warning from the user's page. Cheers! Thorncrag   02:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing
Why do some articles say edit at the top in which you can do so, but others do not and will not allow you to edit them? I thought anyone could edit any article? I am confused.71.132.209.225 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some articles have been target of a lot vandalism and in turn receive semi protection where IPs and users with less than 10 edits and four days old can not edit. Derild  49  21  ☼  02:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)