User talk:Uncle Dick/Archive 2

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Quintus 314   (talk)  18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

LiveDrive listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LiveDrive. Since you had some involvement with the LiveDrive redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Fsmmu (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Refrain From Reverting My Amendments
Your reversion was not constructive. Please refrain from doing this in future. Kids like you are killing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.24.215 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead Air
hi,

you had deleted an example of dead air regarding jay thomas...That really happend you can search youtube for the link on about it its a really great interview please re-edit and post thank you!!

Sir...
That previous edit was not vandalism. If it is explain to me why...--75.139.105.45 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

pincky14talk 12:57pm March 4, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

Vasilis Torisidis
Hi,

regarding Vasilis Torosidis you reverted my change, which reincluded a load of vandalism. I have now twice rolled back the article to the state it was in yesterday, before all the vandalism, but your revert of my revert means I'm running into the risk of 3R, so I didn't want to do so, without letting you know.

I have also requested semi-protetion of the page.

John Hayestalk 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry about that. There's so much vandalism going on that it's hard to tell which edits are adding/removing it. I'll leave you to your work. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

65.51.107.202 and Guion Bluford
Hello, ... Can anything be done to block  and their repeated (active) vandalism of ?

Happy Editing! &mdash;  19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅  Thnx fer the quick response! :-) 71.166.132.232 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

??
You say an edit I made (removing the section 'Flag' on the Cornwall talk page was unconstructive. But there is no text under that section, so why does it need to be kept on that page? 82.1.148.215 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kill Haole
Kill Haole is a myth - why don't you do some research before you claim my edits are vandalism. This is specifically referring to the page, Racism in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamhat456 (talk • contribs)


 * There is a Kill Haole Day page with verifiable references. If you believe that this should be changed, please discuss it on the talk page first. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Those references are a prime example of self-fulfilling prophecy - the whole thing is a myth.Shamhat456 (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. Start a new discussion on the Racism in the United States talk page and introduce your information, with reliable sourcing, to the community. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion. Feel free to participate.Shamhat456 (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a lot for speedily reverting my user page! NoisyJinx (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry
sorry uncle dickGermanshepherds100 17:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanshepherds100 (talk • contribs)

Another thank-you
Hi Uncle Dick. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Best wishes, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Discrete != Discreet
Hello. You reverted a change I made to the Parker 51 page, saying it was "unconstructive". The page as I found it had a spelling error, with "discrete" ("Separate; distinct; individual; Non-continuous.") used. I replaced it with "discreet" ("Not drawing attention, anger or challenge; inconspicuous.") The subject in discussion was a warning label that had been made smaller and less aggressive in a new product version; clearly the second meaning is the correct one. (The definitions I just quoted are from the Wiktionary project.)

Your revert boilerplate included the phrase "if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary." If you care to look at the edit in question, I summarized it as such: "corrected spelling (technically, replaced an incorrect homophone with a correct one)". I fail to comprehend in what way that edit summary was not informative.

So, to summarize: you reverted a change that corrected the English usage of an article, because you couldn't be bothered to look up a word in the dictionary, and were unwilling to believe that someone else might have done so. While I salute your efforts to police edits to Wikipedia, a quick perusal of your talk page suggests that you are having difficulty understanding the difference between vandalism and actual improvements.

I am now re-inserting my correction, as proper use of the language is, or should be, a goal of the encyclopedic project.

Respectfully, I am, anonymously, 128.205.230.236 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Right you are, sir. I apologize for the revert. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And upon reflection, I was not as polite as I should have been. I apologize for my insulting tone, which was uncalled for. Have a good day! 128.205.230.236 (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bolton High School (Connecticut)
The information was correct, as a quick look at the school's website showed. You should rescind your warning. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for your help uncle dick
I am in your debt. could you go and get me some coffee if your not too busy?

By the way
Fraud is fraud. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting talk page
I deleted most of the info from my talk page because it was just some confused dude trying to start an edit war, and so I deem those posts worthless. This is Disco dude rock, but my log in isn't working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.69.224 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
For deleting the comment from the anonymous IP. Would you like me to request for that page Yes Men to be locked? Never heard of it before tonight, stumbled across it whilst doing rollbacking on Huggle! --5 albert square (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A question that's been eating away at me...
Why don't you have a userpage? The Thing // Talk  // Contribs  19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. Never got around to it, I guess. It would probably just end up a vandal magnet anyway. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start
Hello Uncle Dick and Welcome to Wikipedia. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of war crimes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing - you've been officially warned. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not. --Tadija (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, you have just violated your own rule above, I have the evidence and now I shall consult the admins. Z Victor Alpha (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock
Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

= =

--Tadija (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. See here. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All WP:DE vandals must be stopped immediately. Good work! --Tadija (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rapunzel
Thanks for your help on the article for Rapunzel. I've asked for temporary semi-protection to cool down IP editing for the weekend, or until someone official steps up and publishes a story to that effect. You're welcome to join the discussion on the article's talk page, if you're so inclined. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the issue will go away on its own ... Disney finally acknowledged it on its website. It's Tangled. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How did I vandalize a page?
Hi Uncle Dick, I Just got a message from you warning me because I had vandalized a page. How is what I did vandalizing? I'm quite now, so please can you explain. Thanks. JoseySmith (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've rescinded the warning. Your edit was fine. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) JoseySmith (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

citing references.
Hey uncle Dick is the references on the ralph covert article enough for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanty22 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. iBen 22:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the (gentle) warning. I was in error. Sometimes I get a little trigger happy when the vandalism starts to pile up. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Transition metals
I made a name change to two terms, because their official names have been changed: lanthanides are now known as lanthanoids, and actinides are now known as actinoids. Being a chemist, I believe it is only right to use the proper names, and to have people get the correct names on Wikipedia. I was a little surprised at your reversion.

Transition metals
I made a name change to two terms, because their official names have been changed: lanthanides are now known as lanthanoids, and actinides are now known as actinoids. Being a chemist, I believe it is only right to use the proper names, and to have people get the correct names on Wikipedia. I was a little surprised at your reversion. Kumorifox (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Information I was not aware of. Thanks for the update. I've rescinded the warning. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: February 2010
Thanks for the welcome, but I've been a member for quite some time now. My changes were justified, as if you read the logs, you'll see that I've already mentioned that the section I removed was already in the article under the science section. The section will again be removed if replaced. Xxglennxx (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha! I beat you to a revert! (sarcastic)
Always glad when I'm fighting with another Huggler for fast reverts as it makes me feel like I'm not alone in the vandalism-fight. Great work today, man.-- Gnowor Talk2Medid wha? 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to User_talk:SonicArt. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken, although the article appears to be blatant spam and a good candidate for speedy deletion. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SFG
Regards Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 16:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

James Allen References
I added a reference to what was being discussed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.9.27.128 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User page restoration
Thanks! I really know how to make new friends and influence people, don't I? ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi! I do not understand why you marked my edit as vandalism, since I provided not one but seven sources to support the information. --201.253.132.192 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this user, the reversion should not have been done. Please remember that rollback is to be used only for blatant vandalism. If it's not obvious, at least leave an edit summary regarding why the edit was undone. Unjustified reverts tend to be very bitey and can harm Wikipedia's reputation permanently. Try to take a second or two longer before doing the revert. Thanks, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may have been a good faith edit, although user's subsequent behavior leads me to believe that it was a disruptive attempt to circumvent WP:NPOV. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of this, it was not obviously disruptive vandalism, and thus should only have been reverted with an appropriate edit summary. I have nothing against removal of the content, but please leave a more appropriate edit summary in the future (and have a look over WP:RBK which states "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit."). Keep up the good work, and thanks, Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh?
I was undoing vandalism, I even asked the IP to say something in the edit summary if the section he was removing and I was reverting was something that should have been removed. He said nothing and replaced the section with aa. Gatemansgc (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP was removing a blatant BLP violation/vandalism in Dictator. Looks like you may have just gotten your wires crossed on it. No problem. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's why I asked for an edit summary. Oh, well. Gatemansgc (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits today
I saw you were also using Huggle today as I was. I just want to say thank you for your work today in the fight on vandals. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

user page
Please leave my user page alone. James1906 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)james1906

Huggle
Hi. Just a small point. The talk page warnings that Huggle is currently giving out, do not seem to be taking account of other warnings on the page. For example, where there has already been a level 1 warning, it is just issuing another level 1, and I am having to go back in to add an escalated warning. Just to let you know. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

did u even read what i f.ucking said? look at all the history for account:antapanta45!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.102.72.165 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangled mess
Hey man, still trying to fight the good fight over there ... I have a feeling this will be settled by next Friday (when Alice in Wonderland opens, possibly bearing a teaser) or at the latest March 16 (when The Princess and the Frog will arrive on home video, almost certainly including a teaser). Or possibly sooner, since WDAS removed Rapunzel from their website the other day, probably to reload the page as Tangled. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Soz, mayte
You got me, partner.Good work.

Newport Free Grammar School
What is it about my edits to this article that you find objectionable?  MPFC 1969  00:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad. Your edit was fine. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems. I got a false positive from Cluebot and reported it.   MPFC  1969  00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
When you call them on their vandalism, they get huffy, don't they?

They claim to be a former admin whose user id was hacked, they started a new one, and the vandalistic edits made by that account must have been made by hackers. :) Woogee (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
...for catching the vandalism on my user page, even before I did! ``Warbirdadmiral (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback help
Hi, would you mind giving me some advice into what I can work on exactly to be accepted for the rollback status, if at all possible. Thanks. Creation7689 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Secession
hey, you twice reverted a change that I made to the secession page. i dont know why you have done this, as i wasnt violating any of wikipedia's guidelines--at least not intentionally. i came across a facebook fan page with well over 1,000 fans called "The Right To Secede" while browsing Facebook today. Can you explain to me why including this page on wikipedia's secession page is considered inappropriate? It seems to me like it should be considered highly appropriate... (User_talk:71.22.221.210)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Please see the Wikipedia policy on external links. Facebook groups are generally not appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like the fan page is appropriate under wikipedia's "use common sense" guidelines. Or at least under the "ignore all rules" guidelines listed on the same page. I think a fan page about secession is a perfectly appropriate external link to include on a wikipedia page about secession. At the very least, I shouldnt have received a warning for attempting to include it.

Wikipedia's common sense guidelines:

"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter.

Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? If you need to be told that this is a rule, you've missed the point entirely."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE#Use_common_sense

Wikipedia's ignore all rules guidelines include some of the following statements:

"Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Use common sense, below.)"

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)"

Again, the addition of the facebook fan page enhances the secession page by adding an additional resource. it does not detract by adding anything not germane, nor is it self-promotion

(User_talk:71.22.221.210) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Take it to the article talk page. If you can get a consensus that the Facebook group is notable enough to include in the article, it may be added at some point. Until then, Wikipedia policy is to remove all unofficial and fan-created Facebook pages. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. would you be willing to remove the warning that you placed on my talk page in light of the fact that my edits were done in good faith and not maliciously? (User_talk:71.22.221.210) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC).
 * That sounds reasonable. In the future, you might want to discuss controversial additions after the first warning rather than turning it into a revert war. I do appreciate your willingness to talk about it. Happy editing! Uncle Dick (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the quick revert on my talk page :)! StaticGull  Talk 18:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC) sorry added something into wrong page by accident. Got told it was true and put it in but ended up being the wrong person so I apologise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.132.124 (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cutno (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I think you have me confused with someone else... Uncle Dick (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I hope it was a mistake on Cutno's part... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry, Disregard. Cutno (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

 * Most welcome :-) M aen K. A. Talk 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Me, too. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Sorry, I mixed up something and was trying to restore the original state. Villamote March 02, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villamonte (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
...for watching over my user talk. Keep up the good work  Tide  rolls  23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Brzrkr1
I went ahead and put in a report at WP:AIV as a vandalism account ... maybe a week-long block will shut him up, but if he keeps it up, it'll go indefinite. Thanks for helping out, too. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibbins
Just wanted to say good job. I couldn't keep up with them (or you!). See you on the History pages... Bento00 (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh...
I was not advertising at all, it is a wiki on Wikia, and it has over 600 articles, it's pretty big actually, and I'd recommend you go take a look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.239.151 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
for reverting vandalism on my userpage! Airplaneman talk 01:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Citing Sources...
Well, 188.194.203.38 here, after some messages that to be honest rather baffle me.

It all began when I read in the "It's a mad, mad, mad, mad World"-Article, that someone included James D. Rolfe's statement, that it was his all-time favourite movie (as made here: http://www.cinemassacre.com/new/?p=4715 ), which wasn't even added by me. I then added a connection to James D. Rolfe's page, because there is more than one noteworthy James Rolfe on Wikipedia.

This was met with understandable action, reverting my edit and wanting me to cite sources. So I did, as seen in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=It%27s_a_Mad,_Mad,_Mad,_Mad_World&diff=next&oldid=347536347

I'm really not that experienced with Wikipedia, but after getting another notification of having to "cite sources", I just can't see how I did that wrong. I could understand, that it in itself may be not important enough a statement to be added (then again - I didn't even add it), but the video review pretty clearly shows him making the statement at ca. 2:30.

When it comes to relevance of the statement itself, this was never mentioned, just reminding me to cite sources, which I still think I did. 188.194.203.38 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the issue here is not so much the existence of a source, but a general policy guideline of avoiding primary sources. I believe that your edits were in good faith, however, and I will rescind any warnings that I gave you. Since James Rolfe isn't a particularly notable public figure (except in his AVGN persona), I don't think it's appropriate to include this bit of trivia on the page.


 * If there were some sort of secondary source (NY Times article, Time magazine profile, etc.) that explained the importance of James Rolfe's film rankings, it would be another matter entirely. Uncle Dick (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My edit was not contructive?
Oh dear. I thought that that "vandalize" box at haha's talk page was there to play around in, and write off-the-cuff funny things in, as a release from the usual rigors of Wikipedia editing. I don't see what "constructive" edits might be made in such a scenario. I guess I misunderstood? Hope I didn't upset anyone :(   Codenamemary (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! My bad. It wasn't apparent to me that there was a "vandal box" when I rolled back the edits. You're in the clear. I apologize for the confusion, and wish you happy editing! Uncle Dick (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) I thought the idea of a "vandal box" was actually very witty...as I'd never seen one before. Then I got the notice about being supposedly "unconstructive" in my addition to it, and I was like, "Uhhhh....huh?" Best wishes! See you around Codenamemary (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

German Empire
I don't think there are any admins online right now... and I've just done my 3rd revert and he went and changed it back. If this was blatant vandalism we could probably WP:IAR and keep reverting but I don't think that'd be good in this case. X X X antiuser eh? 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just requested assistance from admin J.delanoy who appears to be monitoring the vandalism noticeboard. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reopening Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)
Doubleplusungood. See WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. Nothing good will come from this... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Much good came from it. Thanks very much. I brought up the matter at AN/I and there seems to be a consensus that the attempts to close stop. Good job. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Type89
Hello, Uncle Dick. I wanted you to know that I've restored this user's edit at Lucky Ali and would like you to take another look at their edits elsewhere. While I agree at first glance the unexplained removal is questionable, the user has since stated that these removals were in accordance with our WP:BLP and WP:NFCC policies. The images being removed are either replaceable fair use (which I have now nominated for deletion) or invalid fair use (the edit I have restored). The text being removed is unreferenced, and in one case is certainly questionable. Please take a second look at these edits, and take more care when rollbacking edits in the future. Thank you. Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice if User:Type89 had provided edit summaries instead of jumping from article to article removing content without explanation. Typically, I would expect an editor to tag unsourced content before removing it, and I think that non-free images should remain in the article until they are legitimately deleted. Very suspicious behavior, IMHO, even with the explanation proffered. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know, and myself and two other admins have addressed the edit summary and lack of discussion issues with him. The image on Lucky Ali doesn't need to be deleted, as it is being legitimately used elsewhere, and his removals were technically in order (even though alternative means are usually applied, you're correct). Thanks for your time, in any case. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Create protection of your userpae
Hello, Uncle Dick. I have requested create-protection of your userpage since it has been repeatedly created by vandals. I hope you don't mind.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 21:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, why don't you have a userpage?  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know this too, I thought you were a new user for ages as you don't have one. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything too interesting to put there. Don't really want to maintain it. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My contribution to the Albunnies
May I be informed the motivation behind your reversion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.139.39 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I have a thing for Albanian girls. Why else? Uncle Dick (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what anon wrote was extremely POV... anyhow, I poked fun at it by suggesting it be written that they're from Albany, NY. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Was this a mistake?
 — Soap  —  00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sort of. I was trying to delete the Facebook link because it violates WP:EL, but I think the whole page needs to be speedy deleted anyway. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Weird synonyms
Any idea if there's a wider picture to User:Thedarknight666's editing approach of going through articles and replacing individual words with inappropriate synonyms? Another user was doing the same thing a few months ago (they abandoned the account when warnings hit level four), and I vaguely remember someone doing it a year or two back - I wasn't sure if it was a perverse form of vandalism, a misguided attempt to feel useful, or someone just trying to get their edit count up without thinking too hard about what edits to make. --McGeddon (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was just an attempt at subtle vandalism, replacing key words with similar words that don't quite fit to disrupt the grammar and flow of articles. Not sure that it's worth much attention unless we get a bunch of socks doing the same thing in a short period of time. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandal on my userpage.
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Zhang He has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! - Zhang He (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Salute
From one Dick to another, I salute you. ColDickPeters (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thanks.
Thanks for reverting Omni-Panda's vandalism from my userpage. - Zhang He (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

From me too! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:So-called "Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia"
Could you move Talk:So-called "Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia" back to its proper place? Woogee (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignorance
Please stop reverting constructive edits carried out by great Wikipedians such as the stunning work from Hugghezz, you're clearly too lazy to check the edits, you'll never make it to adminship.Winsberger (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Token of Appreciation
Token of Appreciation in protecting the article on Tau Gamma Phi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.217.68 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a quick thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Mephistophelian † 17:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

i won't do it again
can i delete the messages cause i am not thinking of typing anything onto my talk for a while so can i delete the deletion contest thing on my talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezpass (talk • contribs) 18:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's your talk page. You don't need my permission. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

T:MP
thanks for your help reverting that crap! Some people just don't listen! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Billy Foster
Hi Uncle Dick. I have rejected your speedy deletion request regarding Billy Foster as the article had good history. It's always worth having a look at the history before listing an article as a CSD, just in case good content has been replaced with junk. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)