User talk:Vishnava/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Agathoclea (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Pig War
Excuse me, but the edit I made to the article War was true. In the Pig War, only one pig died which was the cause of the war. No humans were killed or wounded. Please read the Pig War article if you do not trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.127.179 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mundhum
Hi Vishnava, thank you for adding the extra information. Everything looks great, especially the newly-added information:
 * The Mundhum extends beyond religion, serving as a guide for culture, ritual and social values. Versions of the Mundhum vary amongst the various Kirat tribes, serving as each tribe's distinctive culture and framing their social identity and unity in relation to other tribes and peoples.

which really helps to explain the topic.

Keep up the good work!

« D. Trebbien ( talk ) 04:34 2008 April 11 (UTC)

Re: Camling phonology table
It appears that Circeus has made some changes to Camling language to try to fix the table. Is the way it looks now the way you would like it to appear?

« D. Trebbien ( talk ) 03:02 2008 April 12 (UTC)

Mundhum
Where in the Gurung source does he actually say anything to support:"The Mundhum pre-dates Vedic civilisation in South Asia"? Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no doubt the language group & some aspects of the culture pre-date Vedic times, but 2,500 years is a very long time, and your claim is that the exising book/books are that old. They may reflect elements that old, but I suspect it can't really be supported that the current form(s) go back anything like that far. I know a little bit about the Rai & Limbu from time in Bhutan, & I doubt that without a full-time Brahmin-like caste consistent oral tradition would be possible over that period. And if it were, all languages change, so the original, like the Vedas, would be incomprehensible to modern speakers, which seems not to be the case. I would suggest the claims are softened, to something like "reflect beliefs and cultural traditions from pre-Vedic times...". Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But you say: "The Mundhum pre-dates Vedic civilisation in South Asia." which is a good deal more than that. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I dislike "encompasses" in any context; "covers" is better, no? - and shorter, which matters in DYK. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for being so responsive! Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greater Nepal
An editor has nominated Greater Nepal, an article which you have created or worked on, 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. 91.198.174.194 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hi! Just dropped by to say Hello! You have been contributing in a great way lately. Thanks a lot for the great articles. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Road links between India and Bangladesh
many thanks for the Road links between India and Bangladesh article. 'tis informaive and to the pointPetethewhistle (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mecca Time
When I added the template, the Fox News cite was not present as far as I can tell. To be fair, I don't think that would matter. If/when this hits AP, it's going to be carried everywhere. That's not notability, though. That's newsworthiness. If this idea continues as a movement, it would be notable. That's why we don't have an article on every marginally newsworthy concept or criminal. Erechtheus (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I look forward to it. The point in the template from my perspective is to give people some context that this might or might not turn out to be important. This is the sort of article I think needs time to breathe for 6 months to see where it's at. If it's a bunch of guys who had a conference and that was that, it's probably not important. If there is more to it than that, hopefully you and anyone else interested will contribute additions and it will be clearly notable. Of course, there might be more out there now. If you find it, feel free to add it and remove the template. If you're not sure, I'm happy to take a look. Erechtheus (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Going with a third opinion is also a perfectly valid option, and I'm interested to see his take. Erechtheus (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems ok to me as an article - I have added some touches. There must be a previous history, for and against, & it would be useful to be able to reference that. Whether it is a big enough thing to be on the template is a different question - maybe not unless it takes off in a much bigger way. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to be more inclusionist, so I think keep. You found multiple reliable sources that published articles on the topic, so I'm satisified. It's odd to see someone nominate an article that they just started. Royal broil  14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam
, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Jholabibi
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jholabibi, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/O_0013.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For the kind words.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kazi Nazrul Islam
Hi! I think some unsourced materials were added after the article reached FA status. It's fine removing those material, since those are not vital. Rather, maintaining the FA status is of more importance. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the changes you made. I believe all of them were needed. Thanks for your contribution.  Arman  ( Talk ) 01:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your continued good work on the article. You also made very justifiable argument on Nazrul Institute. Take care.  Arman  ( Talk ) 03:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the Nazrul Institute website references can be replaced by Banglapedia - but I am not yet convinced that there is a need for doing so. Nazrul Institute is a Govt. organization in Bangladesh, and their website should be RS. Personally I believe both Banglapedia and Nazrul Institute are more reliable than any book we might find by searching google books.  Arman  ( Talk ) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kazi Nazrul Islam
As I understand, most of the unsourced stuff got introduced after it was selected as an FA. All of that can be removed. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Dear Editor, Thanks agian for your suggestions, I am not a key contributor of Kazi Nazrul Islam, I am just trying to fix the citations, I feel modification is better than the removal. It is true, how much do we know about the man like him, so I am trying to develop, as a Librarian, I have various sources. Thanks agian for your editing. Wish your more contribution. --Anwarul Islam (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out (1950 film)
Wow! Thanks so much for contacting me. It looks like a stupid mistake on my part. I'm glad you caught it and contacted me. Yes, I do enjoy working on films especially film noirs. My best -- Luigibob (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....
for your support on my RFA. I really appreciate the kind words and will do my best to live up to them! --Slp1 (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job
I saw a couple of your diplomacy articles, and I am impressed. Keep up the good work. Baka man  00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Kazi Nazrul Islam
I have completed the fixing of the FA status article Kazi Nazrul Islam. There was not any alternative without rewriting some sentences. Please, watch my works and comment. --Anwarul Islam (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:INDIA
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the India WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Please participate in any of our descendant workgroups that might interest you.
 * The project has a bimonthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered in its entirety, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every India article in Wikipedia.
 * Can you code? The automation department uses automated and semi-automated methods to perform batch tasks that would be tedious to do manually.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 03:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification
Okay, so don't tell my boss, but I'm kinda twiddling my thumbs here at work. I'm looking over the questions and writing up my answers, but could you clarify what you mean in question #18? By "post", do you mean editor, administrator, or as a prospective bureaucrat? And by "walk away", does that include recusing myself, or just walking away from the computer so it doesn't become an issue?

Thanks. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

images (oops!)
All fixed now! I was going in hyperspeed and didn't notice that the fill tool wasn't filling all of India... Mangostar (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

a suggestion
Not sure if you're aware of these, but the Library of Congress country studies are a great resource for the history of bilateral relations between various countries. They're public domain so you can just cut and paste into Wikipedia (with wikifying if you're feeling generous), which saves a lot of time. Most were written in the late 1980s and early 1990s, so they generally need updating, but they often provide excellent info for prior dates. I see that at least in one article you used countrystudies.us as a resource - that's just a (for-profit) mirror of this site. Mangostar (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Next update
Anyone who thoroughly understands the rules and has experience with DYK is encouraged to do the fact, length, and date checking for DYK noms on an article when it is not their own nom. Non-admin help is very important and helpful for this task. It is greatly appreciated if you do a good job. It was a main reason that User:Gatoclass' RFA was wildly successful.  Royal broil  01:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK chores
By all means, do! The more people doing it the better.

You can even move new ones into the next update. The only things that admins have to do (because it involves use of the tools or editing protected pages) are updating the actual template for the Main Page, resetting the clock and protecting the picture. Daniel Case (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

thx
I'll have a look Victuallers (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Islam: the Straight Path
I've addressed the issue on T:TDYK. Please take a look at it soon.Bless sins (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The hook is from: "Thus, Islam: The Straight Path devotes half its content (the last three chapters) to the development of Islam in modern and reformist times" which is in the section "Contents".Bless sins (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I guess this doesn't hurt.Bless sins (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

VandalProof
If I must. :) However, I strongly recommend that anyone looking for an anti-vandalism tool use WP:HUGGLE which is way way beyond what VP is, or at least WikiMoniter which has every single tool VandalProof has, without registration being required. Prodego  talk  23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK - Gauliga Pommern
I've left an answer to your question on the DYK-talk page. I generally find the website in question a very reliable source, it is heavily used within the Wikiproject:German Football. It is purely statistical with no agenda or advertising, only of use to someone interested in football statistics. Its drawback is that the large number of pages does not have separate web-addresses and therefore, to use it as a reference, somebody has to be familiar with the site. Searching for a specific table or fact could be difficult for somebody using it the first time. Thanks for letting me know, happy editing, EA210269 (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Deforestation
Deforestation is the conversion of forest to non forest. There were thousands of acres and after 1850 or so there were 100s. There are now 10s. OK I'll change it to enclosure but I think this is over precise. These are hooks. The articles are meant to be true. The hooks should not be fiction .... but I think they are allowed to be imprecise. However you are doing a tricky job so I will change it to your wishes. Do consider whether you are meant to ensure truth or prevent lies in hooks. I thibk its only the latter. However yiu are doing a difficult job. Well done Victuallers (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Bhutanese relations DYK
Hi and sorry. I was unclear in my comments. I think for a DYK you need proper citations. When I saw your article it only had the URL and title for the references. I think you need access date, publication date, author, if they are available. It becomes very important when links die. I said use the template just because I tend to think that's the easiest way of making proper citations and making sure subsequent editors use the same style but you don't have to if don't want to. I may be stricter on mandating citations than other reviewers at DYK but I think it's within the editor discretion to do that. You seemed to have everything properly cited so I just wanted to encourage you to use a more robust citation style when creating articles.

In any case, good job on your bilateral relations articles and sorry for the confusion. gren グレン 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats and ...
Congrats on the 25 medal. Continuing the debate. You're right "its only an opinion" (but a powerful one) as hooks with comments are much delayed even if they are resolved immediately. (Your previous pickup on my last hook was`100% correct. One of the cites was refusing to acknowledge itself.) In this case however I wonder if the purpose of checking DYK is to a) have all the hooks telling 100% the truth b) ensuring the hooks do not tell lies and that items of debate are cited?

I think its the latter - so we can allow hooks (not articles) to have a bit of latitude. I'm guessing that the word "deforestation" was not around in 1800 so I would avoid it in the article. However the phrase "enclosure" is not known to many people now so I would avoid using it in a hook. When the hooked person reads the article then they should appreciate that this was the building of dairy farms ... not the slash and burn farming that deforestation is now associated with. Anyway ... keep up the good work Victuallers (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

CheersVictuallers (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: review
Hi Vishnava. I got your request on my talk page and I'll try to reply to it tonight (i.e. around 5 or 6 hours from now). If I don't get chance then it might be a couple of days though as I'm pretty busy at the moment. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!...
...for your participation at my recent RFA. Feel free to check out my in-depth RFA analysis where I'm seeking community input on the issues identified. some templated thank spam is also available below. xenocidic (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC) templated rfa thank-spam 

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2. Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).
 * Thank you for your support

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
You don't need to revert an anon's edits if they vandalized then reverted/undid. It is appropriate to warn them with one of the test templates at WP:UTM. I usually don't warn except if they do it a lot.  Royal broil  04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Huggle question
Hi Gurch - have a question on Huggle - after having used it for a day, its now telling me I need "rollback" to use it. Does this mean I must apply for rollback privileges, and if not, what does that message mean? What should I do? If I have to apply for rollback, why did it work a day before? Vishnava  talk  04:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Administrators have been complaining for almost as long as huggle's been around at the amount of abuse it gets. Gurch decided to make rollback mandatory. It worked the day before because you don't need rollback on version 0.7.9. Everyone is now required to use v0.7.10, which requires rollback. You'll have to get rollback in order to continue to use huggle. The link for requests is WP:RFR. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 04:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have granted you rollback. Remember to use it responsibly. :) Cheers, Nihiltres { t .l } 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism
"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism" so no offence but uploding a free license image to improve a stub article is not vandalism, please stop removing it, If it is too big I will make it smaller, but i will not stop putting it, and editing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaqip (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protecting your user pages
I won't semi-protect your user page and other userspace pages since they haven't ever been vandalized. I don't have any protection on my user pages and neither do most admins. I certainly wouldn't apply any type of protection on your talk page because it's very important for anons to be able to leave messages. Vandalism can easily be reverted. I can see protecting a userpage like User:Orangemike. He gets lots of love from vandals since he does lots of speedy deleting.  Royal broil  22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I got your message to withdraw your talk page after I answered.  Royal broil  22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I saw that your userpage was vandalized. Now you can add that "vandalism" infobox if you want. I still don't think that your userpage should get protected. I see that you got rollback.  Royal broil  04:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

68.192.041
But seriously, does stomping on a tick work? --68.38.150.59 (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * If you had been online, I would have asked if you wanted to do the crediting for this round.  Royal broil  19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Drovers
What did I do??--SilverOrion (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Aite, lack of sleep is catching up on me and I should pack it in for now before I become unworthy of CrazyChemGuy's compliments, Vishnava  talk 07:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CSD G7
Hello. Just so you know, when an author of a new page blanks the article, it doesn't need to be reverted. Thanks! -- Schfifty Three  15:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Qatar National Football Team - Vandalism Warning
Hello. Why did I get a Level 2 warning for editing that page with correct information? Especially since after you gave me the warning and reverted the edit, you changed the edit again back to my original one?--198.20.36.98 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No mistake whatsoever on your part - it was me; this has happened a little too frequently now, so I am going to stop for the time being and regroup. The anti-vandalism tool I am using is very powerful, so I must exercise more caution. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">Vishnava <font color="Red"> talk  16:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No big deal. I understand, especially with how much work you're doing editing all these pages.--198.20.36.98 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: My apologies
That's no problem at all, judging from your contributions, you seem to be a very hard worker so mistakes are bound to happen eventually. Can I ask though, what it was you thought was vandalism or how I might avoid this in future? Cheers Cruciatum (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No mistake whatsoever on your part - it was me; this has happened a little too frequently now, so I am going to stop for the time being and regroup. The anti-vandalism tool I am using is very powerful, so I must exercise more caution. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">Vishnava <font color="Red"> talk  16:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, and thanks for the tip! I'll be sure to use this in future. Cruciatum (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

USAF
Why was the gallery I just created on the USAF article reverted? 88.109.186.55 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my mistake - it was not vandalism and I am sorry for the mishap. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">Vishnava <font color="Red"> talk  21:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User page protections
You're welcome. :) If you want them unprotected at any time feel free to ask me, or make the request at RFPP. Either's fine. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Ok
Lol, that happens a lot with Huggle. '' Vinson 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Turing Tarpit
I wasn't vandalizing. The section was completely unsourced, and sounded like it was written by some angry programmer who got trolled a on a message board somewhere. To be honest it wouldn't surprise me if more than half of it was completely fabricated. God knows why it wasn't removed sooner. 124.169.109.7 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, I will try to be more informative in my future edit summaries. 124.169.109.7 (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re vandalism
Hi Vishnava. I think your recent "vandalism" warning to 74.203.108.2 was unfortunate. The material this user added to Game fish seemed to me interesting and in good faith. It was just added to the wrong article (it belongs to an article on game fishing in Florida, which doesn't exist yet). It lacked citations and had some style problems - but was an entirely reasonable effort from a beginning editor. Sometimes a welcome and a gentle explanation of why you reverted an edit might result in a valuable new editor. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
Actually i removed that section because half of it is a ctr-c ctrl-v of the next section (criticism) and the other half is purely a point of view with no evidence to sustain. -201.52.70.78 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont disregard the ips. We´re just people who really LOVE beeing anonyomous xD -201.52.70.78 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You tube link removal.
Since when is removing copyvio linkage, unhelpful? I even left an edit summary 62.56.83.45 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I apologize if I mistook your edits for vandalism, but I think you should discuss such a removal of data prior to doing so and deciding they are inappropriate (at least cite the appropriate policy) - you've removed links from articles and then this edit took out a whole section. Its natural that it could be mistaken for vandalism. Sorry for any misunderstanding, <font face="Verdana"><font color="Blue">Vishnava <font color="Red"> talk  23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See the talk page archives for User:ShakespeareFan00 and User:Sfan00_IMG. In one of those archives it is explained that linking to copyvio on You Tube could be considered a form of contributory infringment. Whilst this is not explicitly stated in WP:EL, it has been held by admins that removal of You Tube links whose (C) status isn't clear is NOT vandalism... If removed links can be shown to be legitmate, feel free to leave explanations as to why :) (There are also in respect of some footage a case for 'video fair use' but this is RARE.) 62.56.83.45 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the article Spacetime (Physics) - Spiralization and Compression Theory
I have been deleting these paragraph two times, and you reverted that action. Please, not that I'm not doing vandalism. The paragraph itself is "vandalism" because is intoxicating the article. The paragraph don't quote references... talk about scientists of Oregon... but who? where are the names? the university? the papers in arXiv? you find nothing, because simply is not true. Other thing is the text "Jack-in-a-box". I googled it and found no references about this. ANY REFERENCE, THAT IS CERO. So seems to be we have a funny guy saying cranck things, as Einstein was astronaut and also discovered the spacetime in the space. (See the analogy with the current text in dispute).

Someone is trying to INTOXICATE the article spacetime, telling no sense things. I acted responsibly doing the following:

Removing the suspicious paragraph (Spiralization and Compression Theory) to the discussion page, asking for more research...

Immediately I received a message from you, rejecting my action. Putting again the "crank text in the article"

I removed again the text...

Again other message from you "putting the same crank text in the article".

Please, before doing that, READ the discussion page. Physics is a complicated subject and deserves more attention.

Hope you understand this, and clean the article properly.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.170.8 (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK?
In case you do not see on the DYK page, the information is cited in the second section, "Hymns and Spiritual Songs", on line one with footnote 7. The source is given as "Sherbo p. 201-207".Ottava Rima (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its quite alright. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Iran and Cuba
Well I do have the BBC report though I can't find a link for it, that's why I used the IRNA report. But your hook is fine anyhow. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA
Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. Glass  Cobra  09:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: thanks
No problem. The way I look at it, if you're getting vandalized, that's really them telling you how good a job you are doing. So keep it up! J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question
Yes, you were definitely correct to use Huggle. For a long time, articles about the Balkans have been under attack, so much so that an arbcom case allowed uninvolved administrators to do basically whatever it takes to preserve sanity. There's even a couple of custom warning templates for situations involving the Balkans: and. As for the article in question, I have semi-protected it for 2 weeks, so you shouldn't have to worry about. As to his threats, no he cannot sue you or Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation, who owns Wikipedia, has a right to do anything they want (short of breaking laws regarding libel, child pornography, etc.) with their websites, and they have allowed users to collectively determine most of the rules here. This, people cannot legally sue Wikimedia regarding issues that are not illegal, and it is most certainly legal to consider Kosovo separate from Serbia in our website's text - the First Amendment allows any business, organization, or person to say practically anything about anything. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello?
Yeah, I got this weirdo orange button on my page, so i clicked on it, and I saw all these edits that were "made by me" at this I.P. address along with a bunch of angry wikiadmin chastising me for making edits I have no memory of making. I didn't know wikipedia existed until 2007. what is this??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.22.188 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If yours is a shared IP address, then someone else using this IP may have made the vandalism edit and you don't have to worry about it. All the same, I recommend creating an account to edit Wikipedia. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Red">Vishnava <font color="Black"> talk  02:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

HI!
SORRY ABOUT THAT EDIT, BUT I COULDN'T FIND HIS TALK PAGE, I DID TRY TO EDIT IT AGAIN TO REFLECT THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwahunn0800 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * His talkpage is User talk:DCEdwards1966. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Red">Vishnava <font color="Black"> talk  18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Don't worry about it. It can happen to anyone, and I hear that Huggle thing is pretty fast! I realized what had happened when I checked the logs and saw you reverting, so I wasn't going to say anything anyway :P

Actually, I should say something and commend you for all the vandalism you've been reverting :) Keep it up!

--QuadrivialMind (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Me and my friend were just talking on each other's pages. Is that unacceptable?


 * Hi - the problem is that messages like this pretty much construe harassment. The other guy has done similar stuff. You guys are attacking each other and we can't assume you are playing with each other. I would advise that you do so off Wikipedia, as this is not the place for such things.

OK. Sorry about that. Pheonex (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem then. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Red">Vishnava <font color="Black"> talk  20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:
This is a shared IP address. Not taking that into account and including the appropriate component in your templates makes it seem to some people as if they are being targeted for edits they did not in fact make. For example, I am on this end of this IP address and I did not do what you accuse has been done. Thanks and don't go too overboard with your reverting and warning. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi - if you didn't make the edit, then you have nothing to worry about in the first place - any positive edit you make will not be reverted. But as you say, this is a shared IP so its not necessary that the warning was meant for you but its necessary to warn the perpetrator. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Red">Vishnava <font color="Black"> talk  20:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine I'm not saying you shouldn't warn the person who did. I'm just saying as a friendly reminder from someone who has been a registered editor that you should remember to put the shared IP clause at the bottom of your warnings like the one just above the one you just made. 96.5.66.240 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

RFA
Shame you withdrew it - the concerns were all minor and it's still early. -- how do you turn this on  23:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job in withdrawing. You'll be ready in a few months I'm sure, and knowing when you need more experience is always a good characteristic to have, I'll keep that in mind on your next one! --Banime (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, a shame to see you withdraw. (I was the one who archived it) Hope to see you there soon. All the best.--<font color="orange" face="Times New Roman">LAA <font color="black" face="Times New Roman">Fan sign review 00:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked - and somewhat disappointed - that you withdrew. With all due respect, would you care to offer a reason as to why for those of us that believe that it would have succeeded?  --Winger84 (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just seconding everyone above - I would bet this would have still succeeded, as no one came in with "smoking gun" evidence that you weren't ready for adminship. See you at your second try, I guess! <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  03:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I was in the oppose category, which I was in the process of revisiting per my comment, I was somewhat shocked to see your withdrawal. Surely, it was premature. There was certainly a chance of it succeeding. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 05:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was checking through the current RfAs, and was puzzled when I didn't see yours. I looked through the archives and was shocked to find that you withdrew. It would of most likely passed, but good luck next time :D <font color=#808080>RockManQ (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Echoing those above. My initial thoughts were a support based on previous interaction. At 26/5 that was very early to pull out. Hopefully the feedback helped, and I look forward to another RFA (may I suggest the very start of the new year?) Meantime, if you have any queries about adminship, or would like any help or assistance I'd be delighted to assist in anyway. Pedro : Chat  07:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I left while your RfA had several supports and one oppose. I thought they must've fast-promoted ya! :) As I said in coaching and emails, I believe you'd make a fantastic admin, and I very much look forward to your next request. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  07:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked. I read the opposers' concerns and they were unpersuasive. You'll make a fantastic admin, and I'll support your next request. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey
I'm sorry to see your RfA go down like that. I personally thought you'd make a great administrator - the opposes didn't convince me in the least (see support #23), and a slight lack of references on a DYK is something that is common even among the most seasoned DYK artists. I think the request would have passed had you gave it more time, since the consensus leaned towards trust for you. But either way, I just came to tell you that you're a great vandal fighter and article creator who's work is tremendously appreciated - keep up the good work! :D Valtoras (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA
Hi. I'm really sorry to see you withdraw, and surprised that you did so quickly - while I felt, after some consideration, that I had to personally oppose, I didn't expect other to necessarily agree. I opposed because you didn't (quite) have the strengths yet that I'd personally like to see in an admin working in those areas, but I expected many others to see things differently (after all, they already had). I felt, though, that you deserved to know why, (hence the long post), because I honestly believe that you will be back as an admin in a short time, and if someone is going to oppose a basically good candidate - as you are - they owe it to the candidate to provide reasons that can be addressed, so that next time they're even better. So, I hope you run again, when you're comfortable doing so, and I'm looking forward to supporting you when you do. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My explanation
Hi guys - I thank everyone who supported me and respect those who didn't. I'm sure I would have succeded and gone on to redeem your trust.

The reason I withdrew my request for adminship is nothing controversial - I've very recently had some important matters come up that will consume months. It happened before last year, when I signed up as User:V i s n a v a but was forced to go inactive for 3-4 months, and again when I had to travel abroad this summer for 2 months. In this situation, it is hardly appropriate for me to request for adminship. When I applied just last Friday, I thought I would be able to give enough time, but this is not really possible now.

I am sorry to disappoint you about this, but its not a big issue really. <font face="Verdana"><font color="Red">Vishnava <font color="Black"> talk  05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. Incidently, at one point my RfA stood at 22/5/0, somewhat worse than the count when you ended your own RfA. I had intended to support your RfA; I hope to have the opportunity to do so again. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam
Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK!
Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

your pages?
how did you get the design behind the wikipedia logo? and how did you get your page to look so cool? Zu Anto 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)