User talk:Wikipelli/Archive 3

Hello!
Thanks! Wikipelli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iani123 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harley Warrick
Hello! Your submission of Harley Warrick at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Stumped by a Gif
Wikipelli, I've uploaded a couple of gifs to use in an article, and now I can't manage to link to them in the article, and I can't figure out why. The files are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hollis_Voters_by_Party_Percentage.gif and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hollis_Voters_by_Party.gif

I'm currently collecting notes for the article (this is where the references are). Which you can find here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thengeveld/HollisGoveranceNotes

Can you help? Thengeveld (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Thengeveld! I inserted one of the images into your article draft to show the syntax for including an image. You'll see that it's: [[Image:filename|thumb]] .  You replace filename with the actual name of the file that you uploaded.  You can also set the width using that parameter. I believe that it defaults to 220 px but I'd have to look that up. In any event, I think the image that I put in is too small and you'd want to play with the width setting to get it to look good in the article.  I hope this helps!    Wikipelli  Talk   17:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I went and read up a little more at wp:images (which you might find useful). I found this tag for including images:


 * filename


 * I'm no expert so I went and looked it up. It's basically the same but, as you can see, with the second example you can add a caption and 'alt' text - always a good idea!   Wikipelli  Talk   17:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You got me going the right way again, thanks! Your change led me to the image tutorial, which is actually really good.  I think the problem was I didn't have enough stuff specified in the "File" operation.  I like "Image" better, although the image tutorial says that they're the same.  Amoung other things, it suggests a variety of ways to make images flow better with the accompanying text.  thanks again. Thengeveld (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * glad you found some help. Rule of thumb, the Wikipedia tutorials are ALWAYS better than my advice! :) But I'm happy to help work out any problems you might have.  Good luck!   Wikipelli  Talk   18:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Alternate rule of thumb: People are better search engines than search engines are, until they get annoyed with you for asking too many questions.  Thanks for your willingness to help.  I'll pester less when I have the help stuff figured out here.  Let me know if I get annoying.  Thengeveld (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anytime. :)   Wikipelli  Talk   20:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Guildford Park
Guildford Park Secondary School does offer a program to pregnant teen mothers. Dont believe me? Here is all the references and proof that you need, found on a non-profit Canadian-goverment-funded website; http://www.options.bc.ca/program_info.php?cat_id=1&program_id=19

Do your research next time before being so difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.176.106 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * your edit here suggested that the day care if for those students who become pregnant by the staff at school. This is not supported by your 'Canadian-government' reference above.  Nor was your addition of "Mr. T" as vice-principal. Your edit was vandalism.   Wikipelli  Talk   03:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

IP 65.43.96.3 User warning
Hi, Wikipelli. Several days ago, you reverted this edit by IP 65.43.96.3 and left this warning template on their talk page. While their edit was unsourced and the wording was less than optimal, it was a good faith edit and not unconstructive; in fact, it was factual, verifiable, and relevant. They've since tried again and were reverted by someone else, although not warned again. I'll add (and source) the info to the article when I get a chance later today, but I wonder if you'd look into removing their warning template? Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I messed that one up. I'm sure I was rushing with Huggle and not being careful. These kinds of things tend to slow me down, though. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. I've removed the erroneous warning and left a message on the IP's talk page. Thanks again!  Wikipelli  Talk   17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Supporting Analysis
Sir Wikipelli: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so one would not expect to have any kind of supporting analysis (generally) as you would see in research paper. But it seems to me that there are circumstances where an author might like to provide support for summary information because the summary information is derived from primary, and perhaps not very transparent, sources.

Example: Suppose you want to talk about the finances of the town of Bonkerville. You might have a table and/or chart that included budgeted vs actual expenses over a period of some years. So you'd go to the Bonkerville town hall, gather the required information, bang it around in a spreadsheet for a while, and come up with a couple of numbers per year that would illustrate how well the town is managed. Information people might like to have.

So you're working from primary sources and generating information where there was previously only data. But it's not obvious, so you'd like to provide access to the analysis. Where would you put it? You wouldn't, I think, create a "Bonkerville Fiscal Analysis" page, 'cause who cares? I suppose you could create an article in your user space, but that's kind-of weird too, since user space is usually for working drafts and the like. There's also the question of uploading a spreadsheet, but that's a side issue for the moment.

Any thoughts? Is there a forum for this kind of discussion?

Regards, Thengeveld (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sir Wikipelli? You give me more credit than I deserve, which will be evident when I attempt to answer your question. :) Please remember that I'm by no means an expert! At best, I'll raise some issues and give you some help pages that would probably benefit us both.


 * The first thing that went through my mind when reading your example is the concept of no original research. I could be wrong, but it appears as though you are doing the research (collecting and analyzing data) to produce the facts that are going into an article. For information on this, see wp:nor. Simply put, this prohibits editors from writing 'facts' for articles - whether or not they are scientific, reliable or whatever. It's a no-no.  Wikipedia relies on information that has been published in reliable third-party sources. It gets people into trouble sometimes, but I think it has to be that way. Someone might put in an article that the lyrics to a song are "do wa diddy" without citing a source and then are disappointed when it's reverted because there's no reference. Hey, all you have to do is listen to the song! But that's not good enough.  So, in terms of your example, I think that the evidence for finances of Bonkerville need to be published in the Bonkerville News-Gazette (or similar publication) in order to be verifiable and includable (if I can invent a word) in Wikipedia.


 * So, I might be misinterpreting what you'd like to add, but I think the 'no original research' applies here. In that way, we leave the analysis to those who have done it and simply state their conclusions.  I hope this makes sense and is some ways helpful. If I'm misunderstanding, please let me know and I'll take another stab at it. Hey, we're BOTH learning!   Wikipelli  Talk   22:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Been reading about the Magna Carta. Lots of lords and barons and kings and sirs.....


 * I re-read the no original sources article and it's not perfectly clear about this kind of thing. Over and over again in the article it talks about point of view and "advancing a position".  It also talks about an exception for "routine calculation".  So what I'm talking about falls into a grey area.  In the example, i might do something like this:


 * Perhaps taken from a budget and end of year roll up, which would be primary sources. You can verify it by doing the math yourself, but it's a lot easier if you're told how it was done.  Is that original research?  I guess so, since it involves synthesis.  I'll poke around a little more and let you know if I find anything.  I suppose I could publish an analysis, then cite it, but I think that violates some other rule.  Or I could "be bold" and put it in and see if someone challenges it.  But I hate to have people tell me I'm wrong. :) Thanks. Thengeveld (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That one I can help with. :)  Don't be afraid of being wrong!  It's happened to me lots of times.   Wikipelli  Talk   01:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Feedback reply on Spirit_Fruit_Society
Reply here: Requests_for_feedback/2011_April_5. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Kris Bartels
Hello Wikipelli. I am just letting you know that I deleted Kris Bartels, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up and, of course, that's no problem at all. Sometimes I'm on the fence with pages like that. I assume it's kids playing - and, in a way, 'testing' WP. I sometimes don't know which is the better tag to use. That one, to me, could have gone G1 or G2 only because, though the title was the name of a person, I really didn't view it as an article about a person. Thanks for your message, though. I appreciate it. I'm back at wp:csd now to refresh my memory. Cheers!  Wikipelli  Talk   15:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Harley Warrick
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK and "is considered to have" (etc.)
Hi. It's good to see a new DYK contributor taking the plunge into reviewing.

My take on qualifying words like "is considered to have," "is believed to have been", "may have been," "may be," etc., is that this kind of wording is sometimes needed (both in articles and at DYK) to communicate lack of certitude. If the sources are uncertain about a particular item, neither the article nor the DYK hook should present that item as fact. However, to some extent expressions like "is considered to have" and "is believed to have been" are weasel words, in that they evade the question of who "considers" or "believes." Accordingly, DYK hooks often identify the "who" (as in "... that John Johnson considers the Spirit Fruit Group to have been the most successful..."). When that is not possible, sometimes the hooks use words like "may be" or "may have been."

I think your question is a worthwhile one, so I suggest that you ask it at WT:DYK, where you will get viewpoints from a larger group of DYK regulars. (Feel free to quote my comments.) --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your comments and your time! It helps! (and I hope I didn't muddy the waters for your nom. If you think I should, I can take out my comments)..  Wikipelli  Talk   17:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
For catching the vandalism to my user page!  Benny Digital  Speakage 11:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem :)   Wikipelli   Talk   22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for catching and reverting the childish nonsense left on my talk page yesterday. Much appreciated! NJZombie (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All part of the service :)  Wikipelli   Talk   22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
I was catching the vandalism to my userpage and was about to revert it... but you got it mere SECONDS after it was installed. Great job, and thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) date
 * No charge... and don't forget to sign your posts! :)   Wikipelli   Talk   22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipelli
Hi Wikipelli, I apologise if I upset you, I didn't realise that the use of personal information was the issue with my revision of Talk:Chichester High School For Boys to a previous version. Would it therefore be acceptable for me to restore the content that was removed, with the names redacted, by inserting "[REDACTED]" in their place? Seeing as removing talk page content isn't generally allowed, I think this would be the best solution. --Tom Slaughter is going to win (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I contacted Wikipedia Oversight by email and the material was redacted already. It was a clear and serious breach of Wikipedia policy to post information about another person. I left you a message on your talk page so there shouldn't have been any doubt about what the problem was.  Wikipelli   Talk   21:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The information is still present in the article history. I merely restored a previous revision, so all that had been redacted is my revert, not the original addition of the information, which could still quite easily be restored. Anyway, you haven't fully answered my question regarding whether it would be possible to restore some of the removed talk page content, but not the names. Surely there could be no objection to that, because no personal information would be present on the page as a result, and it would give a better indication of the page's history. --Tom Slaughter is going to win (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't need my permission to add anything to Wikipedia. I would suggest, however, that before you do add content to articles or talk pages, you become familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines - especially Wikipedia etiquette. Also, remember that an article's talk page is for discussion of the article itself and edits to it - not for discussing other editors.  Wikipelli   Talk   11:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:April 2011
So, u were reverting, an edit, to the talk page of a Redirect? Wat's the point, really? --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 17:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Huggle threw it up and I saw an unexplained page blanking. You might want to put an edit summary giving reasons next time.  Wikipelli   Talk   21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one... :P --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 18:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag/Tags for a section with lousy references or non-NPOV
Hi again. I've found a tag that seems to mark an entire ariticle as needing references, but I can't clearly identify one that marks just a section. For example, the article on the FCC has a "controversy" section that talks about a bunch of stuff that appears to have actually happened, but doesn't provide any citation. I don't have the time right now to look it up, but it should be marked in the article. Likewise, I want to mark the same section as being potentially non-neutral. Much of the article is good, it's just the section that stinks, so I don't want to disparage the whole thing. Knowest thou tags for this? Thengeveld (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, but I had occasion to look for section tags myself last week. I guess I dropped it because I never found them - though I knew I'd seen them. I just found them here:  Template_messages/Section   Wikipelli   Talk   19:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Spirit Fruit Society
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Pages Question
Wikipelli, The FCC discussion page is making me nuts. Would it be rude to reorganize it so that it makes some semblance (probably spelled wrong) of sense? Tanks again Thengeveld (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on the road this afternoon. When I come in for a landing this evening I'll respond more. If you can't wait, there's always be bold! There's the page history and there's nothing that can't be undone.  :)    Wikipelli   Talk   18:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You said to be bold. Now I fully expect to have my user account vandalized, or be told that I'm a vandal or something.  If you have the time to have a peep at what I did, I'd appreciate it.  It's here, if it hasn't been reverted yet. Thengeveld (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I"m thinking your account won't be revoked at all. I like the changes. They're quite different from the 'norm' in WP, but there's nothing wrong with that. Generally, once there are a number of 'dead' discussions they're simply archived.  But I like organizing current/live threads.  Wait and see!  Worst case is that people won't like it and they're put it back the way it was. If they're GOOD, they'll discuss it with you first. Except for a couple of comments a few days ago, the page hasn't been edited since last July.  You're probably ok. :)   Wikipelli   Talk   01:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Entry for Dave Rudabaugh
My addition of a question-mark, which you have reverted, was intended to indicate that the photo of Rudabaugh that has been attached recently is of very doubtful provenance. Someone found the pic in a junk shop where he also found pics of Sallie Chisum. It would seem there is no identification of the subject but the finder thinks it must be Rudabaugh because it looks like he ought to look! Because the only other alleged pics of Rudabaugh were taken after he had been beheaded, I am concerned that adding the new portrait to wikipedia will give it an entirely spurious authenticity.86.160.227.167 (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely a valid concern and there's no reason in the world why you shouldn't question the image that was used. However, adding a question mark under his picture amounts to commentary on it. That is best done on the article's talk/discussion page. You could remove the image and explain the reasons on the talk page, or leave the image and simply start a new discussion about it. It's much better than just adding the question marks in the article itself. Cheers! 11:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Stole your header, thanks!
So I snitched and customized your header and put it on my talk page. Hope you don't mind. In trade I give you this link: Web colors which has English names for colors so you don't have to type in codes that no one understands. One question though (beware of geeks baring gifs(?)), I can't find Papyrus as a font-name in html. Did you guess? Or did you find a list of nifty fonts somewhere? Thengeveld (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No sweat... If I remembered who I stole it from, we could both give them credit! :)  I also borrowed (better word than stole) my signature. I adapted it a bit but I kept the papyrus font. It shows on windows but not on my mac.   Wikipelli   Talk   13:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the nice welcome. If you have any suggestions or improvements feel free to share or add them in. Starshrink (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

animals
and that is true - many people develop animalistic habits, and become animals in next lifetimes. So if they develop meat-eating habit, and want to have a body which suits best for such animal-eating - they may become tiger, or some other meat-eater - in water, in air, on earth etc or in any other of 8 material elements - be it this planet or any other of countless planets in this material world. And those who are grossly foolish - they may even go to hell. Unfortunately, one may degrade even to plant, stone etc - because he acts as non-moving living being. Say, Aristotle believed that soul cannot move. So guess, which non-moving living being he became in next life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.60.98 (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I give up, what non-moving living being did he become?  Wikipelli   Talk   15:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Moved here... and thanks!

Sometimes it would be nice...
...to have that "block" button on the toolbar. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's for sure!  Wikipelli   Talk   17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You reckon they are all asleep at AIV? And is this what you do also between classes? ;) Drmies (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder where ClueBot is these days. Haven't seen edits by it lately.  And, sad to say, there's standardized testing going on for awhile here.  I sit, watch kids test, and revert vandals. :)   Wikipelli   Talk   17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're lucky: my wife (public school system) is not allowed to sit down or work or type during standardized testing. I'm glad I don't have her job--or yours, I reckon! (But I should be grading papers.) Drmies (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Been there, too. Actually, as the technology specialist for the school, I can sit - the classroom teachers monitor the testing. I troubleshoot and try to look important. My wife teaches as well but her county is on their spring break this week. Mine was last week. Home stretch to summer now!  31 days, I think!   Wikipelli   Talk   17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Odd Contribution
Wikipelli, Could you have a look here Odd Contributions and let me know what you think? The FCC contribution is the one of real interest to me. It's not really germane to any section in the article, certainly not to the introduction, and basically I hate it. I also find it odd that the "user" account seems to not really be there or something. I'm inclined to just delete the change. If there was a talk page there, I would ask the person what they had in mind before I blew up the change, but there isn't.  Should I put a note on the talk page? Or just blast away? Thengeveld (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a new user with only 3 contributions. They haven't created their user page and no one has posted on their talk page so that's why they appear 'not really there'. It's not vandalism and I think you just have to take the edits at face value and assume good faith.
 * I think it would be appropriate to make a change that you want and explain it on the talk page (hint: just 'hating' it is probably not the best basis for deleting a good faith edit!). You know better than I, but it appears that they did put in some worthwhile (though uncited) information. If it doesn't go in the introduction, could it be moved somewhere else to enhance the article? That would be my move. Oh, and since they are new, add a welcome template to their talk page with a little extra note thanking them for contributions to FCC and inviting them to join the discussion on the talk page. Wikipedia needs editors so it's great to say, "Welcome!" and hope that they stay and learn.  My 2 cents.  :)    Wikipelli   Talk   10:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take your advise. Obviously (maybe not obviously, there's lots of different types of folk here) "I hate this and deleted it because it's bad" isn't the feedback I would give.  When my "worker bees" submit something like this, I try to be constructive.  Much easier face to face. I'll take your advise and plop a welcome template there and direct him/her to some appropriate comment on the fcc talk page.  PS:  If you look at my signature here, you'll find a more consise way to do the type of formatting you have in your signature. It makes it a bit easier to see what's going on with the html.  At least it seems so to me.   TheNgeveld   13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

rajesh kootrapalli (TBBT s-4)
hi, please talk here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajesh_Koothrappali#rajesh-bernadette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.146.215 (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

rajesh kootrapalli
pls come to the rajesh kootrapalli talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.146.215 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Predestination
Well, sir, your attempted deletion of my corrections to the Predestination page were flagged as vandalism and dealt with appropriately. My question is, sir, what is your problem with translating foreign words into what they really mean? I would have thought that my headline for the revision would have said it all. For your own benefit of information, "Allah" comes from the Arabic al(the) lah(god). It is no different from the Greek word used in the NT, ho-theos, from "ho" (the) "theos" (god). It is used and has been used for centuries by Arab Christians in their own language, as proven by ancient inscriptions. I am glad that someone had the sense to revert your deletion. I would be gladder if you might understand why what you did was wrong. I conclude that your issue lies not in high editorial standards, nor linguistics, but in a seemingly fanatical dislike for the Quran (notice I didn't say "Islam"). You seem bent on keeping the truth of the matter from those who, if they knew the real meaning of the name they employ as a curse, might be shamed into an honourable silence. Please keep this in mind: what I wrote was 100% factual, correct and informative. If you have a problem with it, which you seem to, then I suggest reviewing your motivations for such a blatant (and instant, I might add) censoring of the truth. I can only surmise what those are, but since you didn't provide a shred of justification for your censorship, the reason seems obvious. The only other possible excuse is ignorance, which I find rather incredible given your constant activity on an encyclopedic site such as this. Perhaps Wikislam would be a more appropriate venue for your high editorial standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.0.167 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean, if you have to revert your own reversion because its vandalism, you have to ask yourself if you consistently apply the rules you've been deemed able to apply to others here. And all because I translated the foreign words in the text? For shame, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.0.167 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you would do well to calm down before you accuse me of any sort of dislike for any type of religion or religious text.
 * I initially reverted your changes (from Allah to God)because I felt that was inappropriate given the context. Upon quick reflection, I decided that your changes were good faith edits and I restored them. As it happens, I clicked on the wrong 'undo' button on my browser and so the edit summary included a vandalism tag for my own edits. My fault, then, lies not in any censoring of the truth or bias towards (or against) any religion, but in not being more careful which 'undo' button I click.  Wikipelli   Talk   17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My friend, can't you see that the fact that you felt it was inappropriate in the first place, is the issue? Thanks for changing your mind right afterwards, but come on. Anyone in my position would have felt the same way about your kneejerk response. And of course I couldn't have known that you hit the wrong button, I still don't. If you're so wary of offending religious sentiment, I suggest you limit yourself to editing pages of a secular nature, not from any zealotical urges on your part, but because you simply don't seem educated enough on the subject to override someone who brings facts to the table. If anything, I hope this bruhaha over a few replaced words will serve to remind you of that in the future. Not to say you're incapable, far from it - but anyone could have ascertained the nature of my revision, I even granted it in the headline. Just sorry you had to take the bait at all! Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.0.167 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you for your kind, unsolicited advice on my editing. I will certainly give it the consideration it's due. Have a wonderful day.  Wikipelli   Talk   17:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yay
Yay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.53.185 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Using you icon bar
Hey Wikipelli, I love the icon-bar design on the top of your userpage. Can I use it (Ill change the color to green and replace pages with my name) please? Thanks, Casperruegg (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free! There's nothing terribly original about my userpage. Most of what you see there are things I've borrowed from others. Help yourself! :)  Wikipelli   Talk   10:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Final warning for IP 150.199.116.227.
Hi Wikipelli, Just a courtesy notification that I went ahead and slapped a "final warning" on User:150.199.116.227 in order to expedite their next block, which considering their long history of vandalism, will likely happen soon. In addition to vandalizing Mexico, Missouri today (05-03-11) they also vandaized Kirksville, Missouri (I repaired). Have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

My recent changes
Hello Wikipelli,

The recent changes I did were based on the current facts as in the news papers and articles. The facts currently presented in the article are incomplete, which I believe mislead the readers in general. For example, it says that there are fifteen IITs currently, and ITBHU is not yet officially an IIT. In reality, there are still only seven IITs. The new ones are named as IITs (and destined to be IITs) but not officially IITs unless they are included in the Institutes of Technology Act 1961. In fact, I recently added the reference of the pending bill that shows that the new IITs are yet in the process of conversion. I don't understand what is the problem with the edits I did. I just added the facts about IT-BHU which is also in the process of conversion. The current article tends to create an impression that there are currently fifteen IITs and ITBHU has a different state than the new IITs (check the footnote), which is not correct. I would like to know what's wrong with the changes I did.

Thank you, Abhijeet 1998 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Abhijeet

Hello Wikipelli,

My last message was sent under the impression that the current version of the page was accepted by you, which is not correct. After your changes, someone else reverted the page back to an older version. However, I still feel breaking the table of IITs into two parts provides a clearer picture of the current state of IITs. I am open to ideas. By the way, I reverted the page back to your accepted version, which is better an more current than the version which came up after you did the changes.

Thanks, Abhijeet 1998 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a confession. I just revisted the change that I made. I swear that I saw you change "The sixteen IITs are located in:" to, "The seven year old IITs are located in:" and I took it as vandalism.  Please forgive my tired old eyes. I need to be more careful.  I should not have reverted your change. I will remove the warning on your talk page. My apologies.   Wikipelli   Talk   23:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism in my talk page. Its been under attack all weeks by [Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of PONDHEEPANKAR this guy] in retaliation for filing the latest SPI against him. My user page has been semi protected and i have asked for semi protection for talk page as well. I wanted to let you know, in the past he has also targetted people reverting his vandalism and he might return to vandalise your talk/user pages as well. Thanks again for the help--Sodabottle (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. My user page is protected, but not my talk page. I'll keep an eye out. As it happens, I saw your sock note on their page and was reading the archive about PONDHEEPANKAR.   Wikipelli   Talk   14:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thank you for reverting vandalims on my awards page. I have automatically presented you with a barnstar on your awards page.— Rsteilberg  talk  15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)  While I was there I stole your "DISPLAY TITLE" tag and used it on my pages.  Thank you!   Wikipelli   Talk   15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Blackmagic4804
User:Blackmagic4804 is actually User:Kagome_85.

She was impersonating me. She is also permanently banned from Wikipedia. Her other accounts include User:Ziva_82. And I believe User:MrBunnyMan and User:LongHairedLoser and User:Randomced859 maybe her's as well.

Her IP Address's include

User:142.162.226.72, User:142.162.24.107, User:142.162.227.145, User:142.162.11.222 and tons of other IP's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.144.125 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
.--Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened?
Hi- I see that an edit was removed/purged from an anonymous IP user on my page. What happened? I'm relatively new to Wikipedia... Thanks! Mrmewe (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, some editor was having a little tantrum, apparently. I don't remember what it was. Apparently it was bad enough that it was redacted so I guess we'll never know. Just part of life on Wikipedia.  Wikipelli   Talk   11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks! Mrmewe (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)