User talk:Weegeerunner/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Weegeerunner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gabriel Turner (talk) 01:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Regarding Operation Zarb-e-Azb article
Well thanks for coming in in trying to solve the dispute but I think you should notice the User:Faizan resorted to using IPs to avoid sanctions and block and extending the dispute till I give up by ignoring DR/N and enjoying support of his friends to manipulate decisions. It would be wise to notice that User:Faizan still using the very same old tactic of keeping the article the same and mostly ignoring what I say. I hope you understand that the wikipedia way of reaching consensus with him on the very same article (he claims to be the owner of) is hopeless and so by ignoring all means to reach a consensus has left me no choice. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think many users who have nothing to do with your dispute including me and Weegeerunner have reverted you. If you do not gain consensus on talkpage, you should let things go, eventually other editors will come in and correct it if it is really wrong. At this point you've made more than enough reverts on the same to get sanctioned. -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol like your "friend" faizan got any consensus. To be honest "hes not interested in consensus". How many times do I have to proof it. He doesnt care. Here on wikipedia we have a way of reaching it. If you don't mind please take a look at WP:CONS. Stop blaming me. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw nothing to do with the dispute and revert to your friends revision instead of helping out. I see where that led. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Catherine Winder
You're going to want to read WP:OR again (and WP:SYNTH). Because the claim is inherently negative (it's her fault that the stock price tanked, company delisted), you need a reliable source that specifically establishes that causation. Further, stock symbol market data is a primary source. I don't know if that source exists somewhere, if it does you're free to add it to the article. Otherwise please don't. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to thank you for being one of the most civil Wikipedians I have seen. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Address to Thoughtless Changes
If you actually read the article you would see the dismal amount of content. My additions offered a glimpse beyond the musicians time with The Great Society. By saying its unconstructive is like saying Grace Slick, for example, is no longer relevant after her time with Jefferson Airplane. What you did is a shameful insult to Darby Slick and I recommend returning my work. If not, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with removing sourced content. The content was sourced. There is no reason to remove it. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC

If there is no reason to remove my content, then why did you? Anyways I am fixing it regardless of your opinion.)
 * I see the problem, you see, I mistaked your edit for reverting sourced content. I am a Rollbacker, I used rollback, and threw the baby out of the bathwater. I made a mistake in content sorting, and I apologize. Please Assume good faith next time there is a misunderstanding. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Understood
It is okay friend I know you are just human like me. I have been trying to add content to lost 60s band's and musicians for a while now. I would never try to vandalize them. I apologize for any rude language. Peace to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs) 23:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Sanjar
Mate please take a look on the information next time you do such things. Thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Nant Sych
I've reverted your removal of the abusive unblock request at User talk:Nant Sych, as it absolutely needs to be considered by the reviewing admin. Squinge (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I got it. I should have thought of that. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Boyhood Plot
I don't have an article to reference, as I used the film itself as my reference to describe the plot point. I did give a reason for my edit and even if it can't remain on the page, I seriously think the current description shod be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoWill321 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fighting Vandalism Suggestion
Hello, I have noticed that a lot of the warnings you have given to others were possibly made manually by inserting the relevant templates. Whilst there is nothing wrong with that, may I recommend that you consider using Twinkle: it is very efficient and speeds up the entire process as well as helping other areas. Keep up the good work. Arfæst  Ealdwrítere  17:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Web Edits
--Eatprayswimm (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I originally reverted information yesterday that was erroneous and falsified information provided by Taylor Chandler. The sources and references to Michael Phelps have not been verified. Content added is in totality of her story and credible references. Blanking a page was not an intent. Eatprayswimm (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Eatprayswimm (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC) 
 * That's a serious problem. Do you think the article should be tagged for a rewrite? That might help. Weegeerunner (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 There are other sources looking into what is being posted, however with Wikipedia's monitoring and policies, I would think that a page would be put into a review status before being published. It is irresponsible to allow anyone to publish erroneous information and falsification/fabrication of relationships. However, given that this is Wikipedia, I understand there is only so much that can be taken away from the information provided. Recommend not only rewrite, but removal of all unverified stories. epsEatprayswimm (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, i'll put tagging it for those on my to do list. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Minecraft
No worries. I feel like it's a coming edit war (it has been in the past and a Mojang employee is complaining about the way it's being treated). Was just reverting it to the state it's been in prior to the employee begging others to modify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navarr (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Message
Please stop undoing my edits on the page Ayman Mohyeldin. I have been editing this page for over a year with no issues Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The content you added was uncited. Please cite your sources and you will not be reverted. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My source is the actual interview/appearance Ayman did on Morning Joe. Funny how no one had an interest in his page until this whole Chris Kyle garbage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokiechicklet (talk • contribs) 04:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please cite that source.


 * I am talking about your edits to the page. No one else's. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Italian cuisine
Hi, just a head's up. Your revert on the above was incorrect. There is a cheese produced (now illegally) in Sardinia which contains live worms and it is eaten with them inside!!. Regards Denisarona (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That info is not relevant to the article at hand. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Howlacrijj
Thanks for reverting. The editor is actually a sockpuppet of a blocked editor who was spamming copyrighted advertisements across a wide variety of talk pages yesterday. --Neil N  talk to me 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No Problem Weegeerunner (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
Hey there. I replied on my talk page, but I'll leave this here as well; I've blocked your account for two weeks as requested. You can request an unblock with template:unblock if you need to. Enjoy your wikibreak!  Swarm   X 01:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Message 2
There is no such thing as neutrality when describing a political party. The current page is decidedly pro-CCP - not a neutral stance - and omits many facts about the shortcomings of this party. Please don't talk nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdbolton (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. Read WP:NPOV again. The article is not biased, it's just not blatantly biased for your side.Weegeerunner (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oliver McBurnie
Er no, if you bothered to look at the article history you will see I was removing unreferenced material, not adding it. Also WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. GiantSnowman 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Euroscar
huh? p  b  p  23:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake, and self reverted. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Promise
About a 0RR promise you mentioned: will you then please take over discussing? I, and got a result in German that I archived quickly. Needless to say that Wikipedia seems not to need the proposed page which was introduced several times,. The German version is better, but do we need something like that here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do my best to explain. Weegeerunner (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Drizzy010
Hello Weegeerunner, I apologize for my rude behavior recently. But me and Justinw303 kept going back and forth about rapper Drake's mixtape If You're Reading This It's Too Late. He keeps calling it an album when everyone else says it's a mixtape. He just aggrevated me, and I apologize.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/6472740/drake-releases-if-youre-reading-this-its-too-late-album-out-of — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinw303 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.rap-up.com/2015/02/12/drake-drops-surprise-album-if-youre-reading-this-its-too-late/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drizzy010 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Open world games
"For a game to be considered "Open world" it must contain ONE or more of these key features: Exploration, side quests and/or open areas. Examples are: Dragon Age Origins, Minecraft and Legend of Zelda."

Final Fantasy XIII-2 has side quests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECW28 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can use another wiki article as a source. Got any other reliable sources that refer to the game is "open world?" Weegeerunner (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You need reliable sources to support open world status on game-by-game basis.  Я ehevkor ✉  18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Brought it up at WP:RFPP
Hi. I brought up the case at WP:RFPP. So maybe there is no need to revert the IP's when they will just keep on going until they are blocked or the article is protected. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Good, now it's protected. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

BBC Radio Nottingham
Hi there, sorry you felt I was acting in bad faith. I can let you know I meant well as the section was blank before to tidy it up. Mind if I reblank it? Jenny Barsby&#39;s Bush (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

G1. Patent nonsense
Shortcut: WP:G1

Main page: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense

Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. This excludes the sandbox and pages in the user namespace. In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply.
 * Poor writing. It qualifies Weegeerunner (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, 'poor writing' is excluded. It's things like 'hike yacht twentynine empirically aardvark upwards scrimshank' or 'trtyfghhgtytr jlutyerewwedf' that nonsense is about. As he says, if you can understand it (and, I add, it's not in Foreign or Jargon...), it's not G1. I deleted it the easy way - A7. Peridon (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. I get it now, thanks for informing me. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ash Ketchum
You beat me to it, I was making the same revision to a previous version. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem Weegeerunner (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bizarre article to be a target of vandalism... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it is. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Conor Woodman/Scam City
Hey Weegeerrunner. I've removed the content again. This matter is comprehensively covered on the Scam City page. If every episode of Scam City was covered on Conor Woodman page then it would become a copy of the Scam City page. Better to leave matters relating specifically to Scam City on the right page. In any case, the info added is a poor translation of the Dutch statement made by National Geographic Channel and the source quoted is a biased publication which promotes tourism in Holland. These are pretty good reasons to remove the content from this page I think. Thanks. Editorgr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.40.35 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, the best way to avoid something like this is to use edit summaries to explain your edits, or else it looks like blanking Weegeerunner (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and overseas territories
Without meaning to sound peed off here...

I notice that you've reverted the edit I made to Vehicle registration plates of the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and overseas territories concerning the XJ code, because I only cited the source for it being a Manchester code (and never a London one) in the edit summary and not in the article as well.

First of all, may I admit that the source in question, OldClassicCar.co.uk, actually isn't the most reliable source in the world?

It is right that XJ was always a Manchester code, and it is also a useful site for finding out when each code and its three-letter combinations were issued (e.g. GO was first allocated to London in March 1931, and AGO was first issued in March 1933 while reverse AGO was first issued in June 1960).

But it does get some things wrong (e.g. it says the BF code was allocated to Lincolnshire when in fact it was allocated to Dorset and then to Staffordshire), and also I feel that there are some other things it could and should point out, like where certain three-letter combinations were reserved (e.g. GPO for the General Post Office), banned (e.g. BAS, DUW, DWO, NBG), or used only on motorcycles (as was often the case in the late '50s and early '60s, as more and more authorities went over to reversed registrations). I have actually emailed the site owner with these suggestions, but for whatever reason he has never replied back.

Second, does this mean that it is necessary to cite sources in the article (and not just in the edit summary) for, among other things,


 * AK, KU, KW and KY being Bradford codes before being transferred to Sheffield in the 1974 reorganisation,
 * YJ being a Dundee code before being transferred to Brighton in 1974,
 * London's 'Xx' codes all being withdrawn in 1964, with XA then being reallocated to Kirkcaldy, XB to Coatbridge, XC to Solihull, XD and XE to Luton, and XF to Torbay?

There are quite a few sources for these, including the aforementioned OldClassicCar.co.uk. However - and this is just my view - the appearance of the table of codes might not be changed for the better if the sources are cited next to the entries in question.

Thanks and regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoah, I didn't mean all that, I just meant you should cite that source in the article, not just link it in the edit summary. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to revert a change. A source was provided and I have reinstated the change.  -- GB fan 00:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

List of diplomatic missions of Niger
Here are the links, you put them in the article if you want since you were the first to initiate the changes. Aquintero82, (talk), 17 March 2015, 15:05 (UTC)
 * Embassies in Singapore
 * Embassies in Brazil
 * Qatari Ministry of foreign affairs
 * I am not the one wanting the change to happen, if you want it to happen, you cite the sources. Whoever "initiated the changes" does not matter. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wanting the change to happen? I didn't put the info in on the first place, it was some Elmansoor who did it (see revision history). I've proved that the missions he put in do not exist! Aquintero82, (talk), 17 March 2015, 15:16 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, you made the edit, and linked the sources in the edit summary, and not just the article. Can you cite all that in the article please? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * When one usually adds an embassy to an article page, they cite the source next to the change, however, when one removes the embassy, how can you cite the source next to it, especially when there are multiple removals? I have been doing this for several years now. No one cites a source in an article of List of diplomatic missions of Niger saying that there is no embassy of Niger in Brazil, for example, when it can change in a few months, years time. You only cite the source of the actual missions they have, not the ones they don't have.

Aquintero82, (talk), 17 March 2015, 15:25 (UTC)
 * The number, cite it on the number. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sanatosul
Hello Weegeerunner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sanatosul, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Content in a foreign language is not nonsense.  Thank you. -- GB fan 23:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jasmin Areebi
Hello Weegeerunner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jasmin Areebi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. -- GB fan 23:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Eden College of Technology
Hello Weegeerunner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Eden College of Technology, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. -- GB fan 23:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Estadio Gunther Vogel
Hello Weegeerunner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Estadio Gunther Vogel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. -- GB fan 23:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: NX (gaming platform)
Hello Weegeerunner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of NX (gaming platform), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. -- GB fan 23:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Supun widanapathirana
If a new editor creates an article which is tagged for speedy deletion, and that editor then blanks the article, it almost always means that the editor accepts that the article should be deleted, but does not know how to request speedy deletion. The blanking is almost always not vandalism, in this situation. Rather than repeatedly restoring the removed content, including the speedy deletion tag, the best thing is to just tag the blank page with db-blanked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. I'll keep that in mind. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

CSD A1 nominations
Hi! I've come across a few articles that you've tagged for speedy deletion under WP:A1: "No context". However, while the articles are short, both Therese Lawless and Alexander frese have more than enough context ("is an American lawyer with Lawless & Lawless" and "is a current student at The Arizona State University", respectively) to establish what they are about (people) and subsequently for A1 not to apply. I've changed both into WP:A7, which does apply. Cheers. Kolbasz (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Message
There is some issue with the detail that I have provided for an article on The Coven 2015. I am not aware of having removed any significant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochranefaithful (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, my bad. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Message 2
Hello! This is Rowen1966. You recently removed the edits I made to the page for Amanda Lang due to my lack of refernce citation. The reference is the same as (13) Shinan etc. if you want to include that. I am only on an iPad and it is difficult for me to add it. Re: the removal of the information about her dating life, I trust the original reasons I cited in my explanation section are sufficient.
 * Alright, i'll do that if I get around to it, I'm really busy. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Weegeerunner, Someone has also taken out the additions I made to the Conflict of Interest section. I don't know who is doing this but it is very frustrating. It is too difficult for me to go back and keep re-writing from scratch, and it feels like there is a bias in removing only the changes I make. My sources are sound and the information I had written there could be found in all 3 Canadian newspapers as of two weeks ago. Can you please restore the changes I made?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowen1966 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would technically make me a Meatpuppet, and we could both get in some hot water, I suggest you go to the talk page and ask for consensus on whether or not the content should be added. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't remove everything if only a few sentences are repeated (Lumia Beta apps)
The information about the images nor "Lumia Beta Apps was launched as Nokia Beta Labs on 16 April 2007 only as a page linking to other Nokia beta applications, namely Sports Tracker, Wellness Diary and WidSets.[5] On 13 August, Nokia employee Tommi Vilkamo announced the website's renovation and his role as the new Beta Labs manager on his blog.[6]" were "repeated" in fact it's only one sentence "After the sale of the Nokia mobile devices division to Microsoft[7] and after the announcement of the CEO of Microsoft Satya Nadella to concentrate all its efforts on Windows Phone,[8] the August 14, 2014 it was announced the relocation of the Nokia Beta Labs website to a new site that hosts all new beta trials for Lumia apps.[9]" which I could manually remove if someone wouldn't revert my edits, let's try to remain civil here and try to find a middle road, and if so ¿why would you remove the fitness track information and images? Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I was trying to remove the repeated parts, but I ended up throwing the baby out of the bathwater. Weegeerunner (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also a mistake on my part, I didn't see the duplication until later, I moved everything back into the article but kept all duplicate information out, for some reason there seems to be vicious cycle in this article where one editor removed the images because they weren't current, then were placed into the history section and then removed because they were "nominated for deletion" because they weren't used, then that nomination was removed, and now someone removed them again from the article and they're re-nominated despite the fact that they're relevant to the history of the article, anyhow some "minimalists" seem to plague any Microsoft Mobile related page and tend to remove large quantities of content without ever going to the talk page nor concerning the relevance of the content in relation to the article, recently I've been on a crusade to place all of them back in and was successful but this page seems to come back a lot, anyhow I hope that we've now fixed our dispute, I removed the duplicate part, but I fail to see why the other information regarding the site should be removed.
 * Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Message 3
that alleged massacre is just iraqi propaganda it never happened

if something that big had been confirmed, dont you think it would have been repeated again and again? but it was never on the TV news because nobody can verify it, but anybody can make an online story

stop putting it on, you are spreading anti-muslim hatred — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.71.112 (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, assume good faith, second off, we don't need more than one source, more is better, but it's not required. Weegeerunner (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryan H. Carroll
Thank you for your advice. I will address this issue very soon. Regards, R. R. Shalis (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Enoch Bethany
Why did you revert my edits on Litzy? I put roles in the role box instead of names of characters. What is your basis that such violates style? And I moved the comment that she was a prostitute in this show to a footnote, since someone objected to it in the role boxes. The citations I gave were certainly an improvement over the "no citations" of the editor who reverted my edits. And why should it not be observed and footnoted that Litzy broke out of her cinderella type-cast in this telenovela? And why the instantaneous reversion of my edits today? I didn't see any comments by you on the talk page of the article. (EnochBethany (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Because you used notes to describe a characters role, that's not what a note is for, plain and simple. Weegeerunner (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are saying that a comment may not be made in a footnote? If so, help me out & show me the Wikipedia rule for that one. (EnochBethany (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC))
 * I think it's somewhere in the Manual of style, if I'm mistaken, let me know. Weegeerunner (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a pedophile.
I apologize for calling you a pedophile. Kraainem (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Re your revert on RhodeCode
Read the diff again - they didn't add any tags, they changed the language to promospeak and removed all mention of a controversy where a community developed GPL application was taken proprietary/closed source, which is AFAIK resulted in the only independent coverage that company has ever had. - MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess that is whitewashing. Alright, I'm on board. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
hi, i wan't just actualized the squad of san marino nat. football team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart192 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you know about South Africa: NOTHING!!!
What do you know about South Africa?? NOTHING!!!

I am South African. TorquilMacLeod (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That does not make you exempt from WP:NPOV. Weegeerunner (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)