User talk:Banaticus/archive2009b

This is an archive page of my user talk page. If you wish to reopen an archived discussion or otherwise respond to me, please do so on my user talk page. Thanks! :)

wikireader41

these are diffs which show this users pov against pakistan [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9][10] he has no right to warn users hes a vandal himself and he has the nerve to warn me lol 86.158.177.27 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanx for your efforts against banned editor Nangparbat and his socks. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 86.158.177.27, the first link you gave was Wikireader41 removing spaces from words that had been smooshed together, which is a good edit. The rest of the links that you gave do seem to show POV editing on the part of Wikireader41. Wikireader41, 86.158.177.27 hasn't yet been shown that it is a Nangparbat sockpuppet. You both seem to feel strongly about this issue and it will take me some time to look into. If you two could please stop editing for a day, so that neither of you feels like you have to watch the other persons edits while I look into edits that have been made and see what's been said on talk pages, I'd sure appreciate it. In any case, if you do continue editing and reverting each others edits, please remember the 3-revert rule and the other rules that could cause you to be blocked for a time. I'll look into what's happened and talk to you about this tomorrow. Banaticus (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff shows smoothing but that sentence was put in by the pov pusher himself he wants people to think pakistan is a failed state and so joining kashmir would be illogical its a clear attempt at a pov 86.162.67.76 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

But I'm perfectly calm. The IP editor is a banned editor and POV warrior who is edit warring with Wikireader41. I have no interest in their dispute, (although the above difs are misleading and should be viewed in context) except that the IP editor is blanking comments from other's talk pages. What I posted on the talk page of [Special:Contributions/86.158.177.27|86.158.177.27]] (and as an IP user it's not his/hers) was requesting that he kindly not remove content from my talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but those diffs are a clear indicator of pov pushing please stop feeding trolls escape orbit i will remove wikireader41 edits wherever he edits and stop ignoring his pov pushing 86.158.177.27 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled onto this discussion by accident, but seeing as my contact with the editors involved here is minimal, I thought I'd try and provide an outsiders opinions on what's going on. I'll start with the diffs provided by 86.158.177.27:

[2] is simply a typo fix.
[3] does not appear to be POV pushing. The ref doesn't work so it is hard to tell, but it appears to just be a better way of wording the sentence - also allowing the insertion of links which will surely better help the reader understand.
[4] is adding a ref which appears reasonable enough. Apart from the odd placement of the {brackets} there does not appear to be POV pushing.
[5] does not appear to be POV pushing - although there does seem to be apparent edit-warring. I am by no means an expert on the subject matter, but the statement seems true enough.
[6] appears to be POV pushing in this instance.
[7] typo fix.
[8] does not break talkpage rules. Shows a clear POV, but it is on a talk page only.
[9] breaks no rules. Perhaps slightly hypocritical, but that is its only crime.
[10] & [11] show a clear POV, but they are on a talkpage and they break no rules.

I'd advise that you all be careful with your editing, and make sure you have sources to back up any changes you make. This is a very touchy subject, and there is no need for everyone to be getting so agitated about it. Finally, 86.158.177.27 you have shown a clear indication that you are willing to ignore the rules. If you see an edit by Wikireader41 that you disagree with, take it to the talk page. Alan16 ^talk 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a statement which advocates that an area in Country X (in which Group A lives) should be ceded to Country Y (which country is theoretically controlled by Group A) is inherently POV. We start stepping into the Balkans, Tibet, Chechnya, and all the other territorial squabbles like that. It's Mother's Day in the US today, so I'm up visiting my mother with the rest of the family and eating dinner and chatting for broad swathes today, so I can't spend as much time looking into everything as I'd like. What I'd like to do is to look into 86.158.177.27's and Wikireader41's edits -- see what sort of pattern (if any at all) there is, as far as sockpuppet-like edits that may continue previous patterns, POV edits by both parties, etc. I agree, there really isn't a good reason to be edit warring and slapping a level 4 template back and forth on each other's pages (and the pages of other people who apparently become at least peripherally involved, just like I and you now have, like Escape Orbit). Banaticus (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and may I remind everybody that Nangparbat is a banned editor who is on WP in evasion of his ban. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikireader41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been previously blocked for Pov pushing. Either he has some kind of personal grudge against a particular group or something is seriously wrong.

Now unless people are blind or cannot read these diffs shall show the true extent of his pov pushing this first diff shows him vandalizing the [British Pakistani] page [11] he’s out to defame anything to do with Pakistan here is a user warning him for his hatred of Pakistan [12] but he deletes it as usual now look at his trashy edit about Pakistanis being associated with terrorists [13] if this isn’t pov pushing then what is? Also [14] this diff shows his fine work on another article out to bash Pakistanis will it ever end [15] however this was deleted thank god for that. Now look at him lashing out at a user who told him to tone down his pov pushing against Pakistan the message by silkyfolkboy was deleted obviously by wikivandal I will try to look for it to make things more clear[16] now if you want more evidence just look at his user page it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the intentions of this Indian American and thanks for hearing me out as many Indian admins have sided with him and silenced my voice in the past thanks again 86.162.67.76 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also wikireader has been in the admins board for incidents several times now for his abusive mentality 86.162.67.76 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful is users can actually block him once and for all 86.162.67.76 (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your dreams Nangparbat. he and his associates have maliciously tried to report me several times and each and every time administrators chose to do NOTHING about his complaints. banned vandal editors do not get a say on WP. Wikireader41 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol Hkelkar is that the reason why you were blocked for spreading indian pov trash over articles? 86.162.67.76 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I had a lot on my plate this evening. However, I know I'll have more time tomorrow evening. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time ;) 86.153.132.219 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.158.177.27 et al.

This IP is a sock of the blocked user Nangparbat According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat/Archive, his edits should be rolled back immediately after he makes them and then those pages should semi-protected (assuming they do not have large numbers of productive anonymous editors). Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this a indian pov pusher whom i shall ignore forever i said it once and ill say it again i dont talk to indian jerks 86.153.132.219 (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indian pov pushers et al

This prooves there is a strong network of indian american and other NRIs pushing there pov they protect wikivandal41 becuase he is used as the blunt pov pushing tool they are afraid they shall be blocked if they act the same way and im sure they want to so they let the jerk from chicago do the dirty work for them look at wikivandals edits hes a hypocrite of the nth degree and a pov pusher he removes anything which he finds offensive to hindus/sikh and indian culture or india itself look at sino indian war page hes already removed massive chunks to put forward his bjp style pov go lobby somewhere else maybe the whitehouse wikipedia needs to be indian trash free spread the filth elsewhere :-) 86.153.132.219 (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC) [17] this is the vandal removing sourced info [18] now this is him adding more sensationalist trash is this editor RAW agent by any chance hes oblivious to his pov then again thats what pov pushers do :)86.153.132.219 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now this really irked the tow indian pov pushers nishkid and his chum wikivandal [19] even though its a fact they want to brush it under the rug and hide that indians make the largest illegal alien population in U.S.A 86.153.132.219 (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop

Both of you really need to stop these edit conflicts.

86.158.177.27

86.158.177.27, the following is what I've posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat#86.158.177.27. Unfortunately, I do believe that your short amount of edits are simply carrying on the arguments that Nangparbat was having. I would encourage you, if you are indeed that person, to find some other constructive work to do other than edit Wikipedia. If you are not that person, then you need to find other subjects to edit on Wikipedia -- you need to let the arguments go.

Nangparbat and 86.158.177.27 exhibit similar behavior patterns. Both anxiously revert edits made by "indian users" -- users from India or who edit with an Indian POV. Take this edit from Nangparbat, for instance[20] and contrast it with the very next edit made on that user talk page by 86.158.177.27[21]. 86.158.177.27 has only been editing for a very short while, but seems to simply be carrying on the same edit conflicts with the same people as Nangparbat. The IP address of 86.158.177.27 certainly fits within the range of IP addresses used by Nangparbat so far, although to be fair there are over 3,000 possible IP addresses within that range.

Wikireader41

Take a look at this edit[22] Why did you delete it? Your edit summary said only, "ban ki moon statement on children". Yet it appeared to be a referenced statement from a credible source. Although you can pretty much say what you'd like to say within reason on a Talk page (should edits shouldn't be reverted, as was pointed out earlier), but such can be evidence of a strong non-neutral POV stance. You seem like a Single-purpose account and I would encourage you to leave the Tamil Tigers, et all, alone for a while. There are many other people actively working on those subjects and I think you need to take a break for a while -- please edit other articles, other subjects, other work that needs doing on the Wikipedia before returning to these subjects. Banaticus (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think I removed any info with that edit. please look again. I think it looks like that because the Info ( which anyway was added by me ) was moved within the section . I am sorry but I dont see your logic about Single-purpose account. This is the first time I am working on a Sri Lanka related article and I am working on and I have started or worked on several different article before. I suggest you not pay attention to indefinitely banned user Nangparbat and his rants.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also regarding Nangparbat in his sockpuppet investigation decision was to revert him and semiprotect pages he vandalizes. also may I remind you of WP policy that any edits by a user as a sockpuppet in evasion of their Ban are by definition considered vandalism. So dont let his edits bias you. I was on Admins Noticeboard of incidents recently thanx to Nangparbat and had my edit history and contributions looked at by several admins who in their wisdom decided not to censure me in any way. I think the LTTE article needs some help and I dont see where a large number of editors are working on this article. This also happens to be an area close to what I do in real life so I have some specific knowledge of issues involved. Trust me you dont want me working on cardiology articles. have a good dayWikireader41 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're looking at the same edit that I'm looking at, so I'll link it again.[23] "Ban ki moon statement on children"? You've added and deleted a number of things, but I'm afraid I've missed the edit where you post that material back. Looking at your last 250 edits right now, you've posted on the Tamil Tigers, the Sino-Indian War (same conflict), British Pakistanis, British Indian, and all the time you spent watching for 86's edits and reverting them. It's difficult to find an article that you've edited which doesn't lie in that region or tie into that particular region in some way. Might I recommend, next time, using Wikipedia:Disputes for ideas on how to mediate a dispute with a suspected sockpuppet. ;) Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, such as one of the regional ones found at Wikipedia:Regional_notice_boards or posting an RfC, or any of the other options that are available to help solve disputes, instead of trying to use vigilante-like actions to revert everything that a suspected sockpuppet does while you monitor the suspected sockpuppets edits. It takes at least two to edit war, so I can't help but think that you're partially responsible for how things turned out, you know? Let admins overturn a user's edits in one swoop -- catalogue the list and hand it off, ok? There's no need to start a personal war. ;)

if you have looked at my user page you will realize I have connections to that part of the world. I also have more knowledge about that area than an average wikipedian who does not have particular interest in the region. In case you have not noted I have been faithfully reporting Nangparbat to admins familiar with him and working closely on this issue. reverting vandalism by banned sockpuppets is not considered edit warring on WP. I can see how you feel that I am partially responsible for Nangparbats behaviour. Let me point out that he has been in conflict with numerous editors and admins in the past and was banned long before I started out on WP. I am also a member of Wikiproject India whose stated aim is to improve coverage of that region which unfortunately remains inadequate. like I said you would not want me writing articles on subjects I know nothing about. How to deal with nangparbat has been extensively discussed in the past and does not merit a dispute resolution case everytime he wears new socks which is usualy 2-3 times a day ( I am afraid WP servers will fail). If you are not interested in reverting Nangparbat that's OK. He is a pain in the $#& but somebody has got to do it.Wikireader41 (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a sockpuppets edits is fine, but at the time you hadn't reported the IP to the address that you listed for me (at least not that I can see), you just jumped in. ;) Just sit back, relax, perhaps take a break for a while -- I realize that you're close to that area, that's why I think it might be beneficial for you to take a break from it for a time. Sure, somebody has got to revert a sockpuppet's, but that somebody doesn't necessarily have to be you. Catalogue the edits, then present them and they'll all get reverted. There's no need to start an edit conflict with a suspected sockpuppet, you know? ;)

I might have missed 1-2 of his IP addresses. why do you think I need to take a break ??? How about you take a break or perhaps even consider a retirement ?? as an adult up I can tell you I will take a break when I am ready and will definitely ask you for your advice when I need it. It is a fact of life that people who provide unsolicited advice will see their advice not being heeded to. I wish you well. So Long. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you well too, thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this indians pov pushing against pakistan on articles such as British Pakistani and Kashmir conflict i have given you enough diffs to work on hes added a laundry list of stupid comments on the sections regarding both nations veiw e.g the indian veiw is excessively long and irrelevant while he has cut down the pakistani veiw anyways can you remove them ? if its no then im sure i can figure out a way to remove all his trashy edits cheers 86.158.179.235 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan16 was correct, those diffs, although they may evince a POV attitude, are on talk pages or otherwise innocuous enough that I'm not going to stalk him and start reverting everything he does. I'm a strong proponent of taking my own advice -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so please see what I told him about dealing with you. I don't like having to ban an IP indefinitely -- there's always the chance that your actions are going to block a well-meaning individual from being able to become a responsible editor someday, but I'm afraid that I've had to report you as 86.158.179.235. Please stop editing Wikipedia. Go take a break and do something else with your life for a time. You obviously have tenacity, you could surely accomplish many good things if you put your mind to it. Banaticus (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep maybe your advice aint so bad maybe wikipedia will one day become more neutral and wipe out wikireader41s pov the diffs i provided above do show a pov in articles hes made maybe you forgot to check them p.s my ip is dnyamic thats why it keeps changing whenever i reboot my pc cheers anyway freind :-) 86.162.67.249 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find this comment by 86.162.67.249 very disconcerting: i said it once and ill say it again i dont talk to indian jerks. That is both racist and shows an unwillingness to cooperate, a characteristic unwanted in a Wikipedia editor. I think both the IP and wikireader41 could do with a break from this topic, and if they are not willing, especially 86.., then I would think some sort of block is in order, because it is not the first time that 86.. has made comments like the above one, and nobody wants to see that. Everyone really just needs to calm down a bit. There are some clear agendas here, and that helps no one. Alan16 ^talk 22:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan you are right. Nangparbat has a long history of attacking editors and admins with connection to India or with association with Wikiproject India. His agenda seems to be to literally harass people to death and I can tell you unfortunately some of his initial attempts were successful in discouraging some editors to stop editing. during his sockpuppet investigation ( which BTW I had no involvement with) a range block was considered too prohibitive in terms of collateral damage and I think the consensus was just to revert him, block him and semiprotect pages he hits. his excuse of having a dynamic IP is just that. no reason for anybody to reboot their PC 3 times a day :-). He has also tried to set up 3-4 accounts this year in evasion of his ban. His agenda is now to get me stop editing and that ain't happening. Atleast not because of Nangparbat. However at the recommendation of an admin I will not be reverting his edits on user talk pages only. Cheers. Wikireader41 (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wikivandal aka Hkelkar and indian pov pushers will always infest wikipedia with there pro indian agenda wikireader41 will be blocked like he was back in january when he first showed his ugly hide anyways even if this indian vandal reverted my edits i will continue to revrt his vandalism may wikipedia be free off all indian pov pushing editors like wikireader41 forever peace out 86.158.178.103 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there you go again He is again falsely accusing me of being a banned user Hkelkar. This has been brought up in the past and my name has been cleared of sockpuppetry. Like I said he tried to tarnish my name by dragging me to ANI and several admins looked at my behaviour and did not censure me. He is obviously not even trying to pretend that he is not a sockpuppet. Wikireader41 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like wikivandal aka Hkelkar accuses me of being nangparbat two can play at this game lol your name is already tarnished your a known pov pusher taking a peep at ure discussion page makes this plain and simple get a life and stay away from pakistani articles 86.158.178.103 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hornbostel Sachs

This Hornbostel-Sachs system is very complex and using templates will firstly make all the pages look better and uniform, and secondly will reduce the editing work greatly Ninehouse (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hornbostel-Sachs page has the "Basis of the system" which appears to mirror the List of Hornbostel-Sachs instruments page. I guess I'm questioning why there should be a page on every subset of classification, i.e. 321.321 and 322.11 and 321.31, etc.? All of those templates and all of the List pages appear to almost be a sort of spam. Other than a dead link, there's only one external link. All of the pages which link to the Hornbostel-Sachs page appear to do so only through the Infobox Instrument template. What other pages were you talking about that need all those tmeplates to look more uniform? Several of the templates are already undergoing AfD's (which you warned about by another user when you tried to delete the AfD notice). Banaticus (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind about the templates; I will pursue a better method to ensure some good quality articles on this subject. Ninehouse (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I noticed that other users brought most of the templates up for AfD's and ended up removing most of them. I think 145 pages returned by the Wikipedia search function on "Hornbostel-Sachs", when the whole list (which isn't that long) is on the Hornbostel-Sachs page, is a little excessive. You do quality work, though, so I'm sure you'll come up with a good way to get some nice articles on the subject. Banaticus (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be problematic. People aren't banned willy-nilly. There'a WP:AIV, IRC Chats, there are multitudes of ways for a person to dispute issues, including being banned. After a person is banned, there's already a Mentorship procedure or a person can wait for a while then petition the Arbitration Committee to overturn the ban. Many people who end up banned seem to be looking for methods to game the system and this could encourage that. I wouldn't mind seeing more mention made of the Mentorship program, but what with time/resource comittment problems, that could be problematic as well. Since currently only admins can mentor others in that particular way, I think this is more of an issue for admins to discuss, rather than us, but I think there are enough ways to avoid being banned and to lift that ban again if a person wants to recommit themselves to doing good work. Banaticus (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitch Survey

Thank You For Your Opinion, but it appears you've forgotten to sign you vote/comment, click here for a shortcut to the survey, otherwise, your vote/comment will not count Thank You, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll fix that. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. Banaticus (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACC

This is Banaticus, I'm the one who just sent an email. Hello. Yes. I am a bit confused. Are you on #wikipedia-en ?

hello

Yes I think I need help with licenses. Are you on #wikipedia-en ? This would be easier... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Bauduin (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on #wikipedia-en now -- ask away. ;) Banaticus (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got them. :) Banaticus (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I have check your last messages. You passed. Now you just have the final test to go. Send me a message when you want me to create it :) Check you page User:Addshore/Adoption/Banaticus ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Addshore/Adoption/Banaticus/Test ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 12:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi.. I never edited the article you refer to..

Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.23.108 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. ;)

Abuse reports

I've cleaned up the main page and started processing some abuse reports, so that WP:Abuse reports may be more professional and efficient in handling requests. Would you like to help out in processing some requests? Thanks. Netalarm 14:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Brothers: NES

In this edit (diff), the page creator blanked the page, which looks at first glance to be vandalism, and that's probably why you reverted it. I have done the same thing. I subsequently learned from the Criteria for Speedy Deletion page, entry #7, that

If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request.

Hence, apparently no need to revert the page. Please let me know if you know otherwise. Newportm (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd already added a speedy delete template before the user blanked the page. I didn't notice that the page blanker was the page creator, so I presumed that it was a clumsy attempt by another editor to "speed up" the deletion process. Since it was blanked by the creator, though, it may have been a clumsy attempt to contest the speedy delete -- I'd prefer to wait for a day or two and see if the original creator has anything else to say about the matter before continuing to delete the page. By the way, the speedy delete template that you used specifically says, "Note that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible under this criterion." (emphasis in the original) The page is about a piece of software. I reccomend an AfD instead, to see if the user has any sources or whether the article is basically an advertisement/spam (the article currently has no references). Banaticus (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Super Smash Brothers: NES

Hello Banaticus, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Super Smash Brothers: NES) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow, and do not fit the page in question. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any queries, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I didn't tag the page with that template. ;) In fact, in the edit just before yours on this (my) talk page, I pointed out that same thing to the editor who did make that change. I was leaving it up to that user to correct the mistake but don't mind at all that you did -- such jumping in and helping out is what Wikipedia is all about. :) Banaticus (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Air Force

I am reverting it back to what the dates were. Some British member decided to change the dates to his format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.221.5 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm happy I just left a "just in case" friendly reminder on your talk page instead of reverting the changes. :) Although, I just saw 801st Air Division(diff) -- it looks like you and Ohconfucius are sort of starting to get in an edit war there with those dates. Banaticus (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

followup on page blanking of Korean President's Cup

Hi, I noticed that you reverted this edit and presumably thought it was page-blanking vandalism (which, given the circumstances, was a very reasonable assessment). On further review it looks like it was a good faith edit by the user who was trying to move the article to one with the correct name, and presumably thought the way to do that was a copy and paste of the text from one article to the next, and then blank the original. It's all good, just letting you know... -- Deville (Talk) 18:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hoppus/Tom DeLonge

I'm not trying to be rude, but you stop changing them around, because on their album booklets it says Mark Hoppus 1st then Tom DeLonge then Travis Barker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wooblz! (talk • contribs) 00:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed any around -- I just wasn't sure why you were searching out every occurence of their names and changing the order, especially since you didn't leave any message in the edit summary or on any of the talk pages, at least you hadn't when I last checked a few days ago when I left that message on your talk page. When you go through making such wide-ranging changes like that, just keep the rest of us in the loop and informed, ok? ;) Banaticus (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Jackalbertson.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Jackalbertson.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Jackalbertson.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Jackalbertson.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fixed now. :) Banaticus (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Scouting elections

You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting
---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]