Archives

March 2008 — May 2009

Reverting vandalism doesn't count. I am reporting the user to VirtualSteve and he can block all the socks. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at VirtualSteve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--VS ^talk 02:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Wknight94's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

When you have an opportunity would you check on this article? I found it watching RC and saw a "cite error" message displayed. I attempted to correct the problem but was not able to succede. Fortunately I did no damage, either :) It's a low priority thing, but I try not to leave an article in disarray and this one is not cooperating :-\ See ya 'round Tiderolls 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

...and adopt the "popcorn" version as your own idea! lol LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm insulting Sonichu, not Chris. It's not an attack. 76.247.154.143 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at Vegaswikian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

sync from User talk:Excirial, Spitfire^Tally-ho!
Hello Excirial, just a quick note to say I've removed the db template you put on Busan Foreign School, I've edited it a little, and believe that it should now be fine, if you disagree please do feel free to talk to me about it, great work in the new page patrol, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How could i ever disagree with such a change? It looks a-ok to me. The initial page lacked even the most basic context to indentify what "Busan Foreign School" the article referenced to so i could not make a stub out of it. But that problem is obviously solved now. Great work! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) Glad you like it, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Spitfire. You have new messages at COMPFUNK2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heheh, sorry, did I keep giving you edit conflicts? :) It needs to be moved to a better-capitalized title at some point, but I'll let you do the honours/leave it til you're done. Gonzonoir (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Chocks away! :) Gonzonoir (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Today was the second time you noticed something was going on. The first time was when I created categories in article namespace, the second time a conflict with another editor. How come you are aware in realtime of what is going on? Debresser (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, members of a national legislature are de facto notable. DS (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Information of this sort should have a stand alone website. Nevermind, I made the necessary changes. Needs a bit of cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefirious (talk • contribs) 08:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, been editing too many articles, so I might have muddled up somewhere. Delete the tag if you felt was not necessary. Keep up the good work. Keep wikipedia safe from Vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefirious (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh...I guess I get the feeling that if someone creates an article prompting a reader to visit 'this so-and-so website' and 'that so-and-so website' about a company that has no importance asserted about it, the attempt at "spamming" and promoting the subject supersedes its lack of importance. But, nah, don't mind you making the changes at all. I'll go with A7 instead if you feel it's best. Cheers! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I actually meant to tag the article for speedy deletion because it doesn't seem to meet wik-policy. If you agree, you could retag. Happy editing.SchnitzelMannGreek. 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's okay...feel free to stop by my userpage, view it and sign the guestbook if you want;)SchnitzelMannGreek. 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The lack of tagging on the article may be a Twinkle error, or me prematurely navigating away from the page back before Twinkle had finished. I'll be more patient in future, and look out for any re-occurance. Thanks for the heads-up, sorry for the confusion. TrulyBlue (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that you are editing the article on fragmentation analysis.... Are you adding something to it, or are you deleting it? As I mentioned in my talk page, I am in the process of editing the topic and will have more information by 5:00pm EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipware (talk • contribs)

Hi .. noting your concern on references, can you please suggest what is suitable for inclusion? Does trivial mean they should not be <refs>, or are not worthy of supporting the article? Some guidance appreciated, thx.

Stennie (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spitfire! I didn't mistakenly remove the category "barrages" from the Bristol Harbour article. I removed it because its addition was so obviously a mistake. Bristol Floating Harbour, to give it its accurate name, is not a tidal barrage, like Cardiff Bay or the Rance estuary in Brittany. There has been talk, since Brunel's time, of putting a barrage at the mouth of the Avon, but it hasn't happened.

As I am sure that you know, there is some interest in building a Severn Barrage, but there is no tidal barrage in or near Bristol Floating Harbour. I have worked boats on that harbour since 1983 and I do know what I am talking about.

There is a weir across the river Avon at Netham and an underfall dam at Rownham, but neither serves any tidal barrage purpose. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs - Ah, I see, I just saw it listed at Barrage (tidal) and assumed.... - now you know why Wikipedia is NOT an reliable source!!!! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to AfD of Luke Ayling, sorry, author was notified but assumption is normally made (by me anyway) that recent contributors who have a genuine interest retain articles on their watchlist for a few days. Although this was a relatively new article with relatively few editors, it is often impractical to notify all contributors and so I rarely bother.--ClubOranje^T 01:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Re this: just to let you know, the time between speedy nomination and completion is a minimum of 48 hours. Thanks for your work, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, had a brain fart. Bcspro (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please have look at article and discussion page. ThanksDjflem (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi - I've had repeated problems with a user (over a period of possibly half a year) consistently not acting in good faith regarding edits, acting arrogantly, and (IMHO) discouraging people from editing pages that he polices. I noticed that you had a disagreement with them some time ago and even went so far as to suggest that if they can't AGF they should consider not undoing so many changes. Nothing has changed in this respect. I personally believe that even though this user does remove a lot of vandalism, their net effect on wikipedia is negative, and that they are (a) removing a lot of useful information quickly (sometimes they will remove an entire edit just because it does not conform with one tiny thing - even if the rest of the edit is fine and informative), and (b) discouraging a lot of newcomers with this attitude. I thought I'd mention it here since you seemed to really know what's going on through your discussion with them - is it appropriate for me to say who they are, here? Sorry to bother you if this is all too much trouble. Luminifer (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)