User talk:Age Happens

Any advice for making revision edits for obvious vandalism would be appreciated.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took you long enough...

Took you long enough to revert... --67.68.58.246 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the reversion, although I was about to do so. I merely added the warning to your user talk. You've since done a 3rd revision putting your vandalism back on the page and received an even stronger warning from another vandalism watcher. I expect that your editing on Wikipedia is about to be interrupted (blocked) for some time. Surely you can find some more constructive way to spend your time? Age Happens (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever slut !!!! ~ 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 70.191.219.227 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ~ 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you should be blocked. --Airplaneman (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philatino

It's now up for AfD if you've any thoughts. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philatino. Thanks, --Oscarthecat (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

Posted an explanation of my revision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Extraneous_and_missing_solutions, and I'm going to re-post the change. The revision was constructive in that it removed an error from a page discussing ways to avoid that error. If you disagree, re-revert; no hard feelings. 68.42.7.184 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thank you for reverting the vandalism in my user page. Seeing your contributions to vandal-fighting, I suggest you apply for Rollback at WP:RFR since rollback helps you revert vandalism quickly and efficiently. Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WoT revert

I did explain my edit to the article before you reverted me and additionaly I stated my opinion on the discussion page. I didn't remove any material, in fact I reinserted material that Publicus removed. The name of the war War on terrorism has been droped that much is certain, but the conflict itself is still ongoing and a new name to the war has been given per references Overseas Contingency Operation. The war is still on, it just changed it's name.188.2.194.124 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioclasm revert

Your revert did not even allow me to finish my content. If you want to debate the meaning of biblioclasm do it there. 169.232.232.101 (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on a politically charged event is not the place to debate definitions of terms. Wikipedia links to itself and all uses of terms should conform to each other. You admitted yourself that this is cultural genocide, and it does not fit into the general and usual meaning of book burning which is ceremonial burning as a form of protest. I am not going to get into a revert war. I assume that your intellectual honesty will rule here, as opposed to the wish to mask cultural genocide with a word that is not generally understood not in the way that wikipedia uses it. I, btw, have no relation to Sri Lanka, etc. I was simply interested, and reading the article. There is no reason to define the term on that page nor use a term that requires definition in the lead of an article. 169.232.232.101 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason for the tags at the top of both the article itself and the talk page. Simply reading the article and deciding on your own to edit an article in dispute is not the proper course of action. I reverted your edits. You replaced them. You have not, as yet, followed the procedures for an article in final resolution of a dispute. You were the one who decided to edit the page in dispute and redefine terms and usages therein, after a casual reading. I did not define the term on the page. I did not make the page. I removed your inappropriate edits to a page in dispute. Intellectual honesty indeed. Have a nice day. Age Happens (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria College - Thanks

Hi, I was in the process of doing exactly the same thing to the article when you dealt with it. I noticed this morning that there were more problems than I had reverted last night (the million students was a good clue) but had to rush off to work without enough time to even tag it. Thanks for dealing with it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey i study in bahria college. i alot and what i wrote was true. but some of was edited by my friends that wasnt the real thing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehndiandwork (talk • contribs) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Heya, just a quick thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user talk page, much appreciated, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Pirate Bay trial, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --134.173.58.100 (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a tit-for-tat vandalism warning to me for issuing one to you seems rather childish, don't you think? Perhaps you were merely mistaken in your use of the template. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you merely didn't know how to use the templates. Age Happens (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I issued it because I believed it to be true, and appropriate given what appeared to be the removal of an accurate comment with a supporting reference. However, I have noticed that I was incorrect. Whereas I originally misread the text as "...a torrent tracking website for promoting...", in which case the "for promoting" describes the website, the correct reading is "...a torrent tracking website, for promoting...", where the presence of the comma indicates that the preposition "for promoting" is actually describing the charges made by the prosecution. Or, in short, I overlooked the comma, and I apologize sincerely for any confusion this may have caused. --134.173.58.100 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Stadium

Hi, sorry, I edited the Emirates stadium article not logged in since I thought it was a minor mistake. Shouldn't it be "was" though in that instance, since the Arsenal stadium no longer exists? Thanks, YeshuaDavid (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Sorry, I should make sure I edit logged in next time. Thanks anyway. YeshuaDavid (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kelly

I looked at your ref and spent some time doing additional searches. I accept your view that he has been talked about in that way. I do however remember seeing him (on screen) vigorously oppose that characterization, and I had never seen that characterization in print. He always considered himself a straight-forward liberal. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prods

Before concluding there are no sources, please check that least the other Wikipedias when the links are given
Some of the people you tagged clearly have done more than one event, though there may be one among them for which they are most famous.
Some of the :one events" like being the first woman to climb everest, are historic accomplishments, and very well referenced as such.
II think you may have a different opinion of what constitutes merely one event than the consensus. i suggest that it would be wise to go slowly in such circumstances, and see if your view is adopted, before going to the work of tagging many articles in accordance with this view. Saves work for everyone. If people do agree with you, it makes the later ones easier. If they don't , it saves everyone the trouble.
as a rough guide, when another language wp gives extensive coverage to articles in its area, we give them a certain about of deference. Not completely--standards of notability differer in the different ones--some are stricter than us, some less so, especially with BLP, and we have a right to our own rules, as do they. But especially when multiple WPs have an article on someone, its well to think very carefully before nominating it for deletion. True, they can all be wrong, but that's the exception. DGG (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in some cases I do agree with you.-- you have found some actual problems. I don't want to discourage you from continuing carefully. DGG (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertha Benz

I've closed this debate as a keep. Next time you want to suggest a merge, please go to WP:MRFD or the article talk page if that gets sufficient traffic from interested editors. Mergers are not compatible with deletion because any material that is kept needs to be properly attributed. See "Merge and delete" - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, 19 May 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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]