User talk:Ericdn/Archive 1

Archive 1

February 2009

User 71.188.47.103

Please back off before you regret something Eric.

My response to user 71.188.47.103: Is this supposed to be a threat? If so, I will report it to the proper administrators for potential action. Through your user contribution page, I noticed your changes to five articles which could be considered vandalism, or, at best, jokes which belong in the sandbox instead of in the actual articles. I believe my reverts to these articles were in the best interests of Wikipedia users. If this were an isolated incident, I would have quietly reverted articles; however, many similar article edits in a relatively short period of time can be considered to be an emerging pattern of vandalism. Please carefully consider your actions, both when modifying articles, and when commenting on others' reactions to your edits. Thank you. --Ericdn (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please leave me alone or you will be sorry.Back off you pinhead!!!

Are you "asking" me to give you permission to vandalize Wikipedia and get away with it? It will never happen. Insults will not make me simply leave you alone to commit your vandalism. If you want me to leave you alone, then you should start obeying Wikipedia's rules and stop vandalizing pages. However, if you continue to leave insulting and threatening messages on my talk page, I will refer the matter to Wikipedia administrators for further action. --Ericdn (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism: all text in this topic above this line was removed and replaced only with the line below. --Ericdn (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Leave me alone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!|

Vandalising others' user and talk pages is not acceptable on Wikipedia. This will be reported. --Ericdn (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Problem

I'm not allowed to edit the arbitration page so where do I put my argument? Mazaradi F (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very top of the page, just as on any other Wikipedia page, you should see the "Edit" tab. Click on it, and then go to the appropriate place on the page to add your argument. P.S.: Our arbitration request has now been moved further up on the page. Just scroll until you find it. --Ericdn (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No what I'm saying is that there is no Edit tab up top so I can't post my argument on the arbitration page. For some reason I'm not allowed to edit the page. Mazaradi F (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is your account more than 4 days old? If not, you may not be able to edit the page, since it is semi-protected. Anyway, I see that you have put your argument on your user page. It's as good a place as any if you're not able to post it on the arbitration page - they're bound to look there (I hope). --Ericdn (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well no it's not I just made it the other day. But I give you permission to copy and paste my argument from my user page to the correct spot on the arbitration page if you're allowed to do that. Mazaradi F (talk)

That would explain your inability to edit. I'll copy and paste for you. --Ericdn (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you and believe me there are no hard feelings on my part. I understand what you were trying to do. I hate vandalism myself, but I truly believe what I was doing was for the greater good of people looking for solid information on the UFL. When the UFL does make an announcement I will help to make the UFL article one of the best on Wikipedia. Thanks again. Mazaradi F (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with everything. --Ericdn (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Ericdn, your Request for Arbitration was denied because RfAs are reserved as a means of last resort after going through the Request for Comment and Request for Mediation process. A Request for Comment should have been filed first. In any case, I offer a Third Opinion in the article's talk page.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to address this issue, and I hope that your comments on the article's discussion page will be considered by people making further edits to the page. I do agree with you that his edits were made based on personal opinion rather than fact. However, as I already indicated, I have decided to distance myself from this issue. My involvement with the article started merely with a good faith effort to remove vandalism from wherever I found it. I had no idea it would have escalated to this level - it was certainly not my intention. Again, thank you for taking the time to review our case and post your thoughts. --Ericdn (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go overboard with warnings

Hello Eric, sorry but a number of the warnings you provided in relation to Marysville, Victoria are inappropriate. A check through the recent edits on that page reveal that neither Debate nor Mattinbgn are conducting themselves in a way that could be described as edit-warring. Please be careful in general templating of such long established and experienced editors.--VS ^talk 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks! --Ericdn (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your positive return. Best wishes.--VS ^talk 21:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, I could have found a better way to bring my plea for cooperation on the article's talk page to each editor's individual attention. My apologies to all involved for any confusion and upset, and my thanks to you for pointing this out to me. --Ericdn (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would stay as far away from the IP editor as you can,especially off their talkpage for now. The insane number of warnings was more than just a little WP:BITEy, as can be seen by their cyberbullying comment. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I answered you on the incident page. --Ericdn (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Sorry, I forgot the edit summary for this one...My mistake. Thanks.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of things, it's not such a horrible mistake to make. If one's going to make a good edit, I say we should take as much credit as possible for it! --Ericdn (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ericdn - thanks; I'm still learning.--ethancasey (talk) 13 February 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

You're more than welcome. If there's anything else I can help you with, please feel free to ask. We can hold the conversation on my talk page or yours. In addition, if you post questions on the talk pages of individual articles, regular editors of those pages will certainly be able to give you some useful pointers. You can also use the {{helpme}} tag with your post (on talk pages and user talk pages only) in order to attract more attention to your question. --Ericdn (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. My bad. Genusfour (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries provide a way for other Wikipedia editors to keep track of what's being changed on a page quickly and easily, so by spending an extra couple of seconds editing a page, you're going to provide a very useful service to others. If there's anything else I can help you with, please let me know! --Ericdn (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Space and Sutton, Massachusetts

Thank you for the Barnstar, my first one! I'm glad that I was able to revert the vandalism, but I wish more time could be spent on moving forward rather than "not backwards"! Camw (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to thank me - you're the one who did all the work! I completely agree - it would be nice if we could spend more time on adding to articles instead of undoing the vandalism of others, but that's a price we have to pay, I suppose. --Ericdn (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Heaven12345

Sorry for any misconception about my new reception section on Lord Loss. it wasn't meant to be a fan site, rather give readers an idea of the reviews the book was getting. I did put a disclaimer saying that only positive reviews may have been put on Darren Shan's website, where the sources are taken from. To make it look less like a fans site, it would be good if you helped me find a few more negative reviews to balance it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heaven12345 (talk • contribs)

It's not a problem. Just keep in mind that disclaimers are also inappropriate on Wikipedia in such a way. Remember to keep things neutral. Neutrality is more than just balancing x positive reviews with x negative reviews. It is possible to inform Wikipedia readers of the reviews the book has been getting, but with maintaining neutrality and not turning the page into an advertisement or fan site. I suggest you visit the article's talk page in order to get the opinions of the article's regular editors. P.S. Also, don't forget to sign your articles by typing ~~~~ at the end. --Ericdn (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Sure you're welcome and thanks for the barnstar. Well, maybe you know but many users have rollback tolls which basically makes the vandalism fighting relatively quick and there are also automatic bots (although today not sure if they are in operation) which helps a lot. Even non-administrators can use some of the tool such as WP:Twinkle and Navigational popups, the two tools I used in addition to the regular admin rollback. You can get these tools if you want by visiting WP:Twinkle or Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups and follow the procedures. There is also WP:Huggle which is even more powerful then any other tools. I did tried that one but for some reason it did not install properly. --JForget 17:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And here am I doing everything the old-fashioned, hence slow, way! I haven't installed any software yet, and I'm not sure if I will - that will be the last step to a complete and unbreakable Wiki-addiction. Ditto with rollback. I just do what I can, when I can, and if I'm in the mood for it! --Ericdn (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Small intestine

I don't know if this was by accident, if so, please notify me and I'll remove the warning. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 18:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... either I accidentally replaced vandalism with older vandalism (my apologies if I did - it's happened before), or you accidentally sent this warning to me instead of the actual vandal. --Ericdn (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In the history page, I saw you made the edit. It looks like you put vandalism in by accident from another page when you copy and paste. I have removed the warning as you didn't mean too. Please be more careful next time. Using automated tools like WP:HUGGLE should fix some of these problems. Thanks. Techman224^Talk 18:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I figured that's what it must have been. Reverting multiple cases of vandalism in one step, as I'm sure you know, isn't the easiest thing to do manually. However, I didn't copy and paste - I simply edited an older version of the page and saved it as the new page to cover up the cases of vandalism I was trying to get rid of. Unfortunately, it looks like the older page also had some undiscovered vandalism on it. Thanks for your understanding and patience... I'll try not to exhaust both! --Ericdn (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Good grief, was that really necessary?

I just saw the message that you left on my talk page chastising me for not leaving an edit summary on an article. I found it quite humorous that your edit summary on my talk page was "march 2009" -- and how exactly is that helpful to anyone? There are much more productive things to police on wikipedia, thank you.--Sixtrojans (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a policeman, and using the month and year in a heading is an often-used method of leaving such comments on user talk pages. I'm sorry you found my comment to be unhelpful, but I'm even more sorry that you still fail to see the importance of using edit summaries. Your choice, of course. --Ericdn (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Weather Channel

Regarding your "welcome" message to User:TPIRFanSteve -- You might want to go back and look at the edit history again. He is obviously cleaning up others' vandalism, not reverting his own. Lambertman (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if I misinterpreted who was reverting whose vandalism. In any case, it's good to see someone out there spending the time and effort to clean up vandalism. --Ericdn (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I trust you will apologize to the wronged party. Cheers, Lambertman (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has since blanked his talk page, and it's not up to me to resurrect discussions on his page that he doesn't want there. However, you're more than welcome to direct him here to my talk page so that we may continue the discussion. --Ericdn (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. I'm moving on now. I clearly can't force you to do the right thing, but please consider it. Cheers, Lambertman (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... and yet when I loaded the page recently, it appeared to be blank. Obviously a temporary error. I'll do more than consider leaving a message. I will leave one. --Ericdn (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries about the whole deal...in fact, I didn't even see your first message until I'd read the second one. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In any event, I'm glad you've now seen both of my posts and that the situation is resolved. Personally, I think it would have been better if you had come to me directly, instead of a third person getting involved, but what's done is done. --Ericdn (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get a third person involved -- Lambertman did that all on his own (and I thank him for it). -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the end justifies the means, I guess. Have a nice day! --Ericdn (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Civilization II

What civilizations a player can choose, what units they can make, what city enhancements they can make, etc. are only of use in a game guide, and are of no use to non-Civilization players. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief summary could be written to replace the detailed information, instead of simply removing the information and replacing it with nothing? --Ericdn (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If I found a list of stages, I wouldn't take the time to write paragraphs of content to replace it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why all of the removed information should be deleted without so much as a brief summary to replace it. These are core concepts of the game, not just bells and whistles. If you personally don't want to do the rewriting, then perhaps you can go to the article talk page and ask if anyone else would be interested. Then, once replacement text is ready, the information can be removed and immediately replaced. --Ericdn (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There could have been information salvaged from it, and it still can be - all that needs to be done is go back before my edit, take the actual prose of those sections, and trim it down to the necessary content. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't guarantee I'll be the one to do it, as my to-do list is already grotesquely long, but it would certainly be a nice project for someone to take up. I'm glad we've been able to reach a mutual agreement on this issue. --Ericdn (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Message

Hi Ericdn, Thank you for your message [1]. Sorry for not responding straight away but you caught me in the middle of deleting several cases vandalisms on my talk page including the message you were referring to [2], which as you see was posed by IP user 24.127.205.7. In short, no I haven't resorted to giving myself warnings, but who knows, soon I may be driven to it! ;-) Marek.69 ^talk 05:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! I knew something looked a bit odd, so I just wanted to draw your attention to it in case you missed it. I was very happy to repay the favor. Believe me, I know exactly what you mean about losing one's wikisanity! Have a great day! --Ericdn (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Marek.69 ^talk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

And a cookie for you too, Eric :D Marek.69 ^talk 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your message

I see that you left a message. All I have done with the Premier Rides article is post what someone else keeps deleting. I have posted the company's history and sample accomlishements. I do not know how to stop 68.89.169.63 from undoing and deleting this page. The information is straight from the company and is accurate. Any advice on how to stop this war would be appreciated Coa$ter (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're having a problem with a disruptive poster, I recommend seeing Wikipedia's dispute resolution page for information about what steps you can take. --Ericdn (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Accusation

My edit to Montel Vontavius Porter was not by any stretch vandalism. Stop being a retard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.205.7 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention the following Wikipedia concepts: No personal attacks, Etiquette, Assume good faith, Avoid personal remarks, No angry mastodons, and Staying cool when the editing gets hot. My reverts of your contributions to Christopher Daniels were made in good faith, and with the collaboration of other Wikipedia editors who felt that your edits were unconstructive. In addition, the comments you left on the talk page of another Wikipedia editor tend to show that you are not willing to compromise or discuss changes you make in articles. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, it is not considered to be good form to refer to other editors as "retards" simply because you disagree with them. As you gain more experience in cooperating with other Wikipedia editors, I am sure you will have a much more positive experience on Wikipedia. --Ericdn (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to direct you to oral sex which you can perform on me. Don't accuse me of vandalism for good faith edits, and you won't have an angry mastodon to worry about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.205.7 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned per uw-npa3 on user's talk page. Given this user's history of vandalism on articles and user talk pages, I highly doubt the "good faith" defense. Future personal attacks will be reported. --Ericdn (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

copied

good set of links, hope you don't mind if I copy them ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 21:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to copy the whole boilerplate message if you'd like! It's something I created on the fly to respond to the umpteenth-and-a-million case of someone throwing a wiki temper-tantrum against me that I've come across. --Ericdn (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Know what you mean - I've run across a couple rather persistent little fellas myself lately. Keep up the good (and often unappreciated) work - I appreciate it! — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 21:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC) ;)

Consider the appreciation mutual! I don't consider the work to be totally unappreciated, though. Take Billerica, Massachusetts, for example. It's my hometown, so I want to do what I can to make a page that I'm proud of, even though I know it's not exactly a high-traffic article. --Ericdn (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Anne Veski

Sorry about that. I was using a script to revert vandalism from the user, and it appears to have caught a couple of the user's good-faith contributions, as well. Thanks for the notification. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very prompt reply! I was unaware that this user has a history of vandalism, but I can assure you that his move of the page was a legitimate one. Anyway, I undid your undo, so that the page title has both names capitalized again. However, I noticed that the "Anne veski" page automatically redirects to the proper title, so it seems that there's absolutely no harm done in the end. Except, of course, for the fact that I accidentally allowed the page to be created with the typo in the title in the first place. Anyway, thanks for your efforts, and thanks for being understanding regarding this matter. --Ericdn (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the cookie

Hey - appreciate the cookie! — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 05:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you enjoyed it! Next time I'll have to remember to bring some milk along, too... --Ericdn (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Another cookie

Thanks! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was my pleasure after the work you did to help me with Anne Veski! --Ericdn (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Wow, thank you for the barnstar! That's the first one I've received...  :) Now, I just hope we can get the ISS article up to snuff... -Pax85 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, the Barnstar is very well deserved! I have a long-held interest in space exploration, but, unfortunately, only on a "passive" level, so I doubt there's any information I could contribute to the article myself (except for translations from Russian to English, if necessary). However, as I said when awarding you the Barnstar, your dedication is truly inspiring, and I look forward to seeing the results that will come from all your efforts on International Space Station! All the best! --Ericdn (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Message regarding revert

Hi. Just got your message. Thanks for pointing out protocol. As an FYI, the edit was already under discussion on the talk page, and we had not yet reached consensus on the matter. I had already said that I did not yet approve to what he was suggesting, and it was inserted. So I made the revert back to where it was prior while we were still hashing it out. My understanding of general process is edit, if revert then talk, repeat as necessary. I already know about the 3RR, so I won't go there. Thanks again for the heads-up. --Lhakthong (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Since you're a new user, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the most diplomatic way of doing things, which is to discuss, receive consensus, and then proceed with edits which may otherwise seem controversial. I'm glad you're aware of the three revert rule, which is a very important thing to know. It's clear that you mean well, and I'm glad you're willing to discuss before editing and to think before acting! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here on my talk page, or on the talk page of the article(s) you're currently working on. Good luck with all of your future projects on Wikipedia! --Ericdn (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that anonymous edit earlier today on the talk:Phi Kappa Phi page!! There has been an anonymous Alabama editor for some time now. Previously this person was editing the primary page, but cannot now as it is semi-protected. I'm beginning to think this person is just trying to disrupt the primary and talk page.

Do you know where we can discuss guidelines for honor society pages? I feel like there are inconsistencies across the pages regarding what are considered acceptable claims, content and citations; and we need to aim for some consistency. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're having problems with an editor, you may want to consider reporting him to an administrator for possible action to stop vandalism. If you visit the page, you'll learn what the necessary guidelines are before an administrator can take action to stop a vandal. Most importantly, the editor must be warned a sufficient number of times. So, if you want an administrator to be able to do something, don't just revert an edit and leave it at that. Leave a warning on the user's talk page. With each subsequent warning, move up a level, from level 1 to 2, then 3, then 4. After level 4, you can report the vandal. Level 4im is to be used only in the most extreme cases, as it's both a first and last warning. As for guidelines for editing honor society pages, I wasn't able to find anything specific. However, if you visit Talk:Honor society, you can start a discussion thread with your question, and maybe some editors there will be able to help you. Good luck, and thank you for your efforts to keep vandalism to a minimum on Wikipedia! --Ericdn (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Calculator page

The typo was because home audio was create protected so I created it as home adio and an admin moved it to the right name. Daniel Christensen (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there already a home audio page? Either way, I'm glad the situation was worked out. In the article, I replaced "adio" with "audio", and the link seems to work fine. However, it might be helpful to check with an administrator before creating a create-protected page... just to be on the safe side. --Ericdn (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate redlink

I generally do that if the subject is notable enough to have an article, to encourage other people to start it if I don't get around to doing so at some point. Sometimes it works. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Red link, your idea doesn't seem to be the best, but, on the other hand, since it does occasionally work, it doesn't seem to be the worst, either. My personal advice is, if you don't intend to create many of these articles yourself, just pay attention to which articles you deliberately add red links to, and pay attention to WP:N and WP:V. --Ericdn (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was warned for no reason?

I deleted the subspecies section on domestic sheep, for a reason because there are no subspecies of Domestic Sheep. You should not just warn for no reason, because people will get accidentally banned for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to change information, please make sure there is a verifiable source to back up your claims. In this case, it probably is difficult to prove that something doesn't exist; therefore, you should at least make a note on the article's talk page, or, if nothing else, write an edit summary to explain what you are doing. Unexplained deletions may be justification for administrative action. --Ericdn (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

edit summary mediastinum

done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.77.26 (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm sure you'll find that the edit summary is a very useful tool in Wikipedia. --Ericdn (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits?

I never did. I actually fixed someone else's edit because they put down an estimate which it does not want the estimate. 24.126.28.232 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

??? --Ericdn (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit in Match Game

I was helping with the headings, as that I know that not every word should be capitalized. Something I've seen in this section: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). I can promise you I mean no harm to articles. --99.158.136.26 (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your contributions to bring Match Game in line with MOS, and your edits were very helpful. However, an edit summary allows other editors to easily see what changes are made to an article, and so I, for example, could have saved a little time and not have looked at the article changes to see what was happening (vandalism or otherwise) if you had written a brief edit summary. Just something to keep in mind for the future. Believe me, if I were mad at you for something, I would have sent you a much harder message than the friendly edit summary one! :) --Ericdn (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your cookie you gave to someone

Nz26 | Talk | Contribs has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

April 2009

FUZE Meeting

As reviewing admin, I declined that speedy for a good reason as explained on article talk. If you wish to nominate it for AfD then please go ahead. Mfield (Oi!) 07:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I simply put the cart before the horse in this case. I read the discussions related to the recreation of this page, and, while I'm still suspicious at this point, I'm more than willing to give editors the time needed to create a legitimate article. If it ends up turning into an advertisement again, then I'll discuss my opinions on the article's talk page, and we'll figure out from there whether or not the article should be nominated for deletion again. --Ericdn (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh?

How can you be liberal, a socialist, and pro-Putin, all at once. Aren't liberalism and socialism opposing views of the world and Putin is just a power merchant devoid of ideology except a kind of nationalism and might is right cynicism. That's just my opinion, hope you don't mind me writing this. I was just confused by your user-boxes92.21.61.231 (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to discuss the matter with me via email, but a Wikipedia user talk page certainly isn't the place for this kind of discussion. In short, though, liberalism and socialism are not mutually contradictory; in fact, they are both on the left side of the political spectrum. That's where Putin falls, too. --Ericdn (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia & Afghanistan Occupation Comment

Hello Ericdn. Does Wikipedia have an email or private message delivery system? I would like to send you a message. Thanks. Kenmore (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Try this. The link will allow you to email me directly. --Ericdn (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)