User talk:Yettie0711

If you are about to complain about a warning message that I have left on your talk page then read this first. You must provide an edit summary even if your edit is constructive. Any edits that remove content without an explaination are considered vandalism. Also if you intend to make a large edit that will change the appearance of article (e.g. removing info boxes), discuss the change in the articles talk page first. Anyone who leaves a complaint similar to the ones outlined above will not receive a reply. Thanks yettie0711 (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who

I have removed your "too long" tag. Given the breadth of the topic, I consider the introduction to be a model of brevity. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's difficult with a subject having such great breadth & longevity to have a terse lead, but I informed you as a matter of courtesy. I'll take another look at it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phenol

Thanks for fixing the vandalism. Perhaps you didn't intend your edit to be missing an edit summary? If you include one such as "reverting vandalism", it shows up on other editors' watchlists telling them what the edit is without their having to click on your edit to see it was a vandalism fix. Thanks for catching the vandalism. Hope to see you around, - Neparis (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Normally the fact I am reverting an edit due to vandalism is automatically explained in the edit summary box. There must have been an error this time. I'll check from now on in case this happens again. Sorry again. yettie0711 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul O'Grady

The article already has a "citations required" tag at the top, so there is no need to go through tagging each unsourced statement. It would probably be a better use of effort to find sources for those assertions. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but adding references on Wikipedia has become too much of an hassle. Best to leave it for someone else. yettie0711 (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock

You incorrectly marked the edit as vandalism, and inappropriately warned the IP user. Checking the source on the content that was removed showed an old article with no relation to the new content. A google search was unable to turn up any hits as well. I have reverted the edit and left a message on the IP user's page. Looking at the history I saw the edit was originally made here by a user with a history of vandalism. ~~I suggest in the future you slow down a bit in your revisions to make sure you get the whole story.~~ -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right because I'm the only one ever to make a mistake. Also, the user did not specify a reason for removing the content. Now he/she can go around wikipedia removing content as much as they like because according to your message they should disregard the fact that they have to provide an explaination when removing content. Please READ the warning messages carefully before updating the offending user's talk page again. I will not update the user's talk page because I don't want anonymous user's thinking that we are at war with each other - thanks. yettie0711 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. I pointed out your error because I didn't know if you had the page watched or not. Because the last thing I wanted to have happen is to undo your change and then have you come back and revert it (thus leading to an edit war). To me it would look weird to see "Reverting vandalism" in the history followed by an undo of that revision. I will apologize for the last line in that message, as that was worded very undiplomatically. I should've rewritten it, but as far as I was concerned deleted/stricken/revised it's still in your history so I still said it. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Warning Box

Hiya. I don't know if the template you use to advise editors you've reported to WP:AIV is a bespoke one, or one from twinkle, but if you see this diff [1] it's not being closed properly and so runs on across the page. You may want to fix it :) Thanks for you help BTW Pedro : Chat 13:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry about that. I did not realise and I will sort it out straight away. Thanks yettie0711 (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem now you're fixing it. And that's one of the better warnings I've seen. It doesn't mention WP:AIV (which is good) and may well seem more "official" and hopefully stop the vandal before we need to resort to a block. Again, thanks for the hard work on RC Patrol. Good work. Pedro : Chat 13:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Formby, Jr.

The item I added regarding that the threat that Malan supposedly made against Formby is a fabrication is correct,can you please point out that this incident could not have taken place .The National party only came into power in 1948, two years after Formby's tour of S A. Malan was in no position to threaten anybody.The incident never occurred, the source (The Guardian) is incorrect 81.151.143.16 (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I realised that you were only trying to imrove the article and that is why I did not issue you with a warning. I have left a list of helpful articles on your talk page that will help you avoid having your edits reverted in future (should you follow the guidelines). Please do not be discouraged and I hope you continue to make constructive edits in future. Thanks and have fun! yettie0711 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for your comments, however this still does not address the issue that gave rise to my original posting 81.151.143.16 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Ok, I'll spell it out for you. You vandalised Wikipedia by adding bold text into articles (with few exceptions although your edit was not one of these exceptions). ONLY the title word(s) may be in bold text. Also you need to cite a reference when making such a bold claim. Read establised articles and you may understand this better. This is my final word on this matter. yettie0711 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph MacRory

~~I am editing in good faith. Have you really looked into the results of my edits? I think you are not polite to define my editing as disruptive. --59.149.32.77 (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

You are ignoring Wikipedia's guidelines. The articles you need to read are at the top of your talk page. As you had already been povided with the articles a warning was needed. yettie0711 (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I still don't understand. Please explain with details in what ways i ignore the guidelines specifically. --59.149.32.77 (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wikipedia article's should be uniform in appearance according to Wikipedia's Manuel of Style. A big edit like the ones you made to the info boxes of Joseph MacRory, John D'Alton, William Cardinal Conway, Tomás Ó Fiaich, Cahal Daly and Seán Brady were not in line with other articles in this encyclopedia and have been reverted. (See, for example, the info box at the J.K. Rowling article) If you beleive that the articles should look like the edits you made try discussing the change in the articles talk page Please read the articles at the top of your talk page. Also, wiping warning messages off your talk page is vandalism. Thanks yettie0711 (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

90.241.44.21

~~Please, there is no vandalism 90.241.44.21 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Ok then please provide an edit summary when removing content to stop this happening again. Thanks yettie0711 (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~I have now, please don't be so trigger happy. And stop undoing the edits on my own talk page. 90.241.44.21 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not "trigger-happy", just following the guidelines. Also removing warning message from your talk page is vandalism. This is my final word on the matter. yettie0711 (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. WP:User talk page says it's allowed...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 14:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalis on my talk page! StaticGull Talk 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I like to think that is what other's would do for me. yettie0711 (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physical vapor deposition

The external link I posted was for an informational resource that does not require any payment or account to access or view. I feel this is a linkworthy site that can add genuine value to research in the semiconductor industry. It does not promote any specific company or organization. 11:20, 08 May 2008 (UTC)

{{help me}}

Please could I have a second opinion. I reverted an edit made by User:195.173.69.2 to Physical vapor deposition after the user added this external link into the article ( http://www.semi-directory.com ) believing it to be vandalism as it provides links to other websites to purchase items. As the user quite rightly states, however, (see the message above), the website itself is not a promotion and does not encourage you to pay anything. So is this an ok site or not? Thanks yettie0711 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it does seem a bit adverty, the homepage is certainly so. If there's a page about Physical vapour deposition on that site, add a direct link to that page. Otherwise, leave the link out completely...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 14:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dendoge, that has helped. I'll inform the user. yettie0711 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your apology. It is apprecaited.

I have been communicating with user IReceivedDeathThreats over this issue. Please see the following page for comments: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IReceivedDeathThreats). I hope this explains some things for you. The site is primarily a resource and directory site to aid people research semiconductor establishments.

Admittedly, there are some methods in which money can be made, but this is not the primary goal of the site. Unfortunately, due to the site being only a month or two old, there is not much in the way of free downloads in the shape of technical papers etc but this will grow over time.

From your comments, I take it to imply that if I add content to each category specifically about each topic (e.g. 'Phyical Vapor Deposition') then this will be acceptable to publish links? Your advice would be greatly appreciated. All I am trying to do is provide a useful resource for people in the semiconductor industry so if you can tell me what needs to be done on the site, I will ensure your comments are implemented.

One thing I don't understand is that this entry has been deleted but very obvious commercial external links to specific equipment suppliers remain in place (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_mechanical_polishing). Why haven't they been deleted?

Regards, Themintyman (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bathysphere (vessel)

Thanks for whacking the vandals - Zed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zednaught (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hi Yettie0711..I'm not sure how to create one of those content lines, so I'm going to try to type on an already created one. Well, I wanted to apoligize for what I wrote on The Indigo Children page, I don't even remember what I wrote really, ha ha =D I did create an account, like the message suggested. But anyway I think what I wrote was probably sort of angry sounding, if I uhhh remember right. I just wanted to let you know that I am not one of the bad guys and I was just voicing my opinion in the wrong way at the wrong place. Thanks for showing me that. Wikipedia is not the place to fight the battle I was trying to. So, that would be pretty much it. Have a good day! -Hiya447777

Shameless episodes

Hi there, i've just undone your revert. I'm not quite sure what you wanted to achieve, but if you take out that table closer, the whole end of the page goes wonky! --Ged UK (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was a revert to the wrong place. I was trying to get back the text that was in the tables before all the alterations took it away. Then I was going to clean up the page yettie0711 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, thanks for fixing it properly :) --Ged UK (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic (1997 film)

Thanks for identifying a problem with this article. It is customary, and courteous to editors who have spent many hours working on it, to explain your concerns in more detail on the talk page so that they can be discussed, or addressed quickly and satisfactorily. Thanks. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]