User talk:Malo/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 11 March 2005 and 29 November 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Thank you. malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 12:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Malo/Archive01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 02:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flockmeal, Malo 18:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creating Articles w/ Categories

Good work creating new articles. When you create things, it helps tremendously to assign them to an accurate category (see WP:CG for info). If you're really not sure about categories, at least assign your new articles a stub category (see WP:SC for info). By assigning a category, you help make sure your new articles don't get lost as 'orphans' that are not associated with related topics. Feco

Deleted article

Hi, I replied to your comment at the Talk:Cock pushup page. Regards, Fire Star 05:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kobayashi-Hillary

Hi, As you say, he has accomplised several things and if the article were made less self-promotional I agree there would be a case for its retention. Dlyons493 19:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USN Ships

By the way, good work filling in all those IDs and links on the 'lists of USN ships'. I personally can't manage more than a page or so of DANFS at a time.

For articles of ships, you might be interested in adapting the templates I've got linked to from my user-page. It saves having to retype the boilerplate and class-characteristics each time. I'm currently working through the Fletchers ... in rather desultory fashion. —wwoods 06:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by. Yeah sorting through all those DANFS pages takes a while, and I've got firefox loaded up with lots of tabs sometimes. I appreciate the help with the templates, but right now I haven't been focusing on ship classes, yet. Maybe I'll look into it a little deeper here in the near future. At least now I know where to look. Malo 06:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Hugh Purvis (DD-709) article

Good work! It could stand a bit more wikification, but otherwise a nice contribution. Thank you! --Durin 22:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just cleaned it up a bit and added a few more wiki links. Thanks for noticing. I appreciate the encouragement. BTW I was snooping around your user page/Desk and I noticed that you have many many interests and a genuine desire to make WP better. Also I took the initative to add another two time Medal of Honor winner, Frank Baldwin because of your comment on your user page. Maybe I can contribute more to that. Oh and good luck with your RfA, it looks like you are a shoe-in Malo 01:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The improvements on the article are good. There's still more wikilinks that can be made :) For example, U.S. 6th Fleet. Over time, you'll recognize these right away. I've just done so many of these that they leap out of the page at me. :) I've done what I saw on them. Note; I almost always put "" and "" around years when the year is first mentioned in an article. Some people don't do this; matter of taste perhaps. I don't think it hurts to do it, and it helps some people to place events in context by pulling up that year's page. I've also managed to confirm that the image that I've now added to the article is in fact a USN photo (and thus in the public domain, and usable on Wikipedia). The image exists as this [1], which is part of a publication by the division she was in (thus proof it's a USN photo). A better version of the same photo is here [2], which is idential to the one at navsource.org [3]. I cleaned up the photo and rebalanced it from the original. --Durin 17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it seems you did a lot more research hunting for a USN photo. Thanks, I have noticed that many images out there either have some copyrights or just aren't specific as to who took them. (At least in reference to USN ships and alike). So I have been reluctant to added images that I am unsure of. Thanks for the example of the 6th fleet, I have been picking up more and more as I go, I'm sure I recognize these more now. Thanks again. -- Malo 18:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rv'd your addition of the Turkish ensign to the article. It should really go into an article about the ship while it was in the Turkish navy. This article covers only her USN service, and thus the Turkish ensign isn't really appropriate. :( Re: Photos. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes not. www.combatindex.com has a number of photographs, nearly all of which are credited as USN. I've learned to take that with a slight pinch of salt though, as there may be some photos that are not USN (though I've yet to confirm one as not). I think it's important to hunt these photos down, especially for older ships. Much history is lost every day, and getting at least one photo on Wikipedia gets it on a resource that is much more readily available. Eventually, the Purvis association website will go away; had I not had that resource, I would not have been able to confirm the image as USN-PD. --Durin 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake, i figured that the page could use that ensign simply because for the time being I doubt the Turkish naval records exist/are translated hence making a page for the Zafer all but impossible at this point. I suppose that it really needs to include a lot more history of the Zafer to use that insignia, right? If that is the case, then I should really look back over some of my other submissions as I know I have used other nation's ensigns on similarly fated vessels, with little or no history of them under their new names. whoops, thanks again -- Malo 21:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction article

Thanks for helping verify the page. Maybe if you have time you can check out the Seduction Community article, which has been unfortunately nominated for deletion. It's an interesting subject and needs to be revised and improved, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.229.118 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid you're trying way too hard to keep an article alive on WP. You must be willing to let others mercilessly edit your contributions. I've posted some info on your User page, which should be a good start to reading up on the how's and why's of WP. -- Malo 17:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bagley class destroyers

Thanks for helping with the Bagley class, I haven't been able to do as much as I'd like. However, you've put the draft as 17' 1", but most places I've seen have it listed as 10' 4" or 9' 10". What's your source on that? — db48x | Talk 21:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took it from the DANFS entry on the Bagley. Being the lead ship of its class, I kind of guessed that they all would have the same draft. But then again the DANFS isn't 100% accurate, in fact it doesn't think any of the Bagley class destroyers are Bagleys, instead it lists them all as Gridley class destroyers. Can you provide some other sources for the alternative drafts? Thanks for checking my work. -- Malo 21:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just checking my sources and it seems that the DANFS has the 17' 1 listed as the Drafts of the Bagley, Blue, and Ralph Talbot, but the remaining ships are all 10"4, or 9"10. Something is definately wrong here, just not sure who or what is accurate. -- Malo 21:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just asked my Grandfather and he says it was 12 feet (He remembers getting to help scrape the paint off of the hull, and then repaint it at one point.) He says the 10'4" figure is correct, but that would be the draft before all of the equipment, supplies, armament and ammunition were loaded. — db48x | Talk 15:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The more I search for references on this topic the more and more I think that you are correct. It seems this site says the full load draft is 12ft 9.5in, this says 12ft 10in, and this last one says the draft is 13ft 1in. So it seems that the DANFS is mistaken in this case. My theory is that the pages for the DANFS online are scanned into webpages using OCR software and consquently some numbers and letters are incorrect because the scanner isn't sensitive enough, or is otherwise unable to recognize a character. Thanks for looking into this more, I'm going to go around to those pages and fix the draft numbers. -- Malo 17:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, navsource also says Bagley's draft was "12' 10" (Max)".

—wwoods 22:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USN jack image(s)

[copied from User talk:David Newton#USN jack image(s)]: Okaay, I've been working through the articles using Image:Usnjack.png, switching them to Image:USN-Jack.png, |48px. But now I see a notice that the preferred replacement is Image:US Naval Jack.svg.

Is that correct? —wwoods 18:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[copied from User talk:Wwoods#Usnjack.png on Commons]: Re your message on the SVG USN jack, it looks to be an image with an alright licence, and the quality is alright. I've uploaded a few SVG files to Commons myself since the code to display them was switched on. It took my a few goes to get the files correctly displaying, but the SVG display code really does work.

Since flags like the USN jack are of a diagram sort I would say that it is prefereable to have them linked to an SVG. That way those that have the necessary browser to display an SVG can get a really good and infinitely zoomable vector image, rather than the raster images prevalent at the moment. I certainly know that many of the free ensigns and jacks that I made to replace a number of the problematic ones linked to in the ship tables at the moments were raster images exported from an SVG vector image. In fact that USN-Jack.png is one of those images in and of itself. David Newton 22:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've also been doing a lot of updating the images, I thought you'd like to know about this issue. Henceforth, I'll be changing "Image:Usnjack.png" to "Image:US Naval Jack.svg|48px". However, I don't feel any urgent need to go back through the dozens of articles I've already changed, and I don't see why you should either. —wwoods 08:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this. I'm kind of skeptical of switching everything to svg and I am even more hesitant to use anything on commons. I haven't really decided if I'm going to change to the Image:US Naval Jack.svg or just keep on using the Image:USN-Jack.png. It really doesn't seem to matter much to me. -- Malo 08:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of nn-bio template

You marked Henry Schlacks as {{nn-bio}}. I find it utterly perplexing that you would state that someone who founded a major department at a major university could be non-notable. I've removed the tag. Please show better discretion in tagging articles for speedy deletion in the future. Kelly Martin 11:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is just the way I saw it. What makes this university, and more importantly all of its deptartments, notable? (*cough* their football team *cough*). Honestly I still don't think this person is notable. At least not from the current info in the article or the other info I've found. And honestly I think you are a bit biased considering that you are on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indiana. Again, just the way I see it. Thanks for stopping by. -- Malo 19:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Femme Fetale

Hi, Thanks for the info. I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but it's usually less confusing if nothing is changed while an article is on Afd. So my guess is that it would be best to revert to the previous position - but don't take that as authoritative. If it's now redirecting properly then that's what's intended for the long-term anyway. Dlyons493 Talk 12:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USS Alabama

Thanks for finding a better picture for the info box on the USS Alabama (BB-60). I had been considering taking a pic from the causway that would at least be better than the tourist picture that was there. But, I was thinking, do you think it would be a good idea to put the old picture down near the section on how it was made into a museum ship? Or, maybe I should get the picture I was thinking of making showing it with the nearby park (and hurricane induced list). Donovan Ravenhull 20:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Bingde

I'm just wondering if the sort key is right. In Chinese names the surname is first. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that would be my mistake. Its just that I was looking through a bunch of the 1941 births looking for names that haven't been catergorized alphabetically. I've already changed it so that it is correct. I forgot that some east Asian nations such as China and Japan switch the names. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Malo 01:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD signature

Thanks for the catch! I went over and signed it. I guess I got in a hurry. Thanks again--Rogerd 03:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Adam1213#Warn

Users can't spam peope with it as you go to the page and the text is inserted they could copy and paste you have to save it like the normal way. Try it on the sandbox and you will see what I mean. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk +|WWW 06:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning....

What about wp:warn --☺Adam1213☺ Talk +|WWW 06:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand to what page you are refering to. -- Malo 06:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ship images

Hi, nice to see someone taking up the torch on naval ships! It would be upload PD ship images to commons - I've been working intermittently there on setting up a parallel structure of galleries corresponding to ship articles here, which will be helpful as we start to get multiple images (commons also help detect duplicate uploads, which happen regularly). Stan 12:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at commons:USS Princeton (CVL-23) for example, essentially a skeleton USS Princeton (CVL-23) containing only the images (and maybe recordings some day). There's not a formal "duplicate detector", but on en: people can upload copies of an image and use in different articles without noticing the existence of the others, while on commons images tend to get grouped by subject, so duplicates eventually end up adjacent to each other in a gallery. Eventually I hope people get in the habit of consulting commons (via the "more media" links from article), to see if an image is already available, before uploading another one. Stan 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Malo, you're correct that they are not actually credited as us navy images on navsource, but i remember having this discussion with someone several months ago and it was noted that given the time period the images were taken (for the most part) it is highly unlikely that anyone other than an active duty sailor would be able to have taken the particular images in question do you think this should prohibit them from being uploaded....Usually on navsource if the image is actually copyrighted to an individual instead of the navy or an organization, the © is actually present. Part of the disclaimer on the site reads: "Images contained on this site that are donated from private sources are © copyrighted by the respective owner...the rest are believed to be in the public domain." Since most of the images were obviously taken from past sailors who hapened to be taking photos while on duty, most of them would be considered public domain unless marked as copyrighted.

as far as not listing the exact weblink...that was done because of navsource, the links tend to change from time to time. I don't have a problem putting the actual address in the summary, i just thought due to the sometimes changing links, it would be easier this way.

i'm open to thoughts/suggestions though. i obviously am all in favor not uploading from navsource if the group consensus is other than my reasoning. --ScottyBoy900Q 13:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "list of high value detainees"

That was a bad name for the article. My mistake.

I have responded at length on the page devoted to discussing the article's deletion. Basically:

I don't think this list overlaps the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Those detainees are all in military custody. The most senior al Qaeda captives are believed to have remained in the custody of the CIA.
I think for the wikipedia coverage of the GWOT to be complete it should record what is known about both the detainees in military custody and those in the custody of civilian instelligence agencies.

You mentioned other concerns. Care to share them? I am hoping if I can answer all your concerns you will reconsider your delete vote. Thanks. -- Geo Swan 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I tried to amend the article taking your concerns into account. I'd appreciate your feedback on my changes. Feel free to tell me that you think that while I met the letter of your suggestions you still think the result is POV.

Um, about POV... because a couple of other wikipedian voted to delete, based on perceived POV, I went and checked WP:DEL, I think it says that a perceived POV problem is not grounds for deletion. Carnildo [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_high_value_detainees&diff=26726583&oldid=26709790 said: If you check, "article cannot be made NPOV" (ie. inherently POV) is grounds for deletion.

Am I nuts? The policy just doesn't say that.

Anyhow, even if the result of the vote is keep, I will remained committed to addressing any remaining POV concerns you had. -- Geo Swan 23:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gleaves class destroyers

Hey, I noticed you started cleaning up some of those Gleaves class destroyers too. I already started a template for them User:Malo/Gleaves class destroyer template If you'd like to use my template, feel free. Or if you could, I was wondering what you thought of this template, as far as stats, formatting, looks, or anything else I might be missing. I value your opinion.

Also I thought we might pan out a cleanup schedule, just so that we don't get caught too much editting the same article at the same time. I've just been working from the bottom of the Gleaves class up lately. -- Malo 02:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working through the list on Image:Usnjack.png, sprucing them up. Between us, there're almost done! I'll leave the Gleaves ships to you, and work on the Clemsons.

The template looks fine (well, it would, wouldn't it?). I've made some tweaks to the template I'm using for the Clemsons; see User:Wwoods/Clemson class destroyer page template. I don't know if you've come across many ships with multinational careers. Here's an extreme example, to show how I've been handling them: USS Herndon (DD-198). If there were more info on the second (, third, etc.) careers, I'd make separate articles, but with so little, it doesn't seem worth it.

Yesterday I can across USS Rowe (DD-564). The look of the table interested me; I may decide to adopt some of that formatting.

Have you noticed the way DANFS and Navsource don't necessarily agree on the stats? E.g. one says a ship's draft is 17 feet while the other says 13! Typo or scanning error? Fully loaded vs. lightly? A non-standard ship, but one reference just has the class's normal stats? Arrgh. I usually go with the danfs version and hope that someday someone else will sort it out.

—wwoods 00:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal accusations

You have a lot of nerve accusing me of vandalism. You're the one deleting factual information with the intent to misinform people. ~24.121.48.137 12:15 PM, November 03, 2005 (PST)

If this is in regard to whether or not GW likes grilled cheese sandwiches, then I will apologize for calling you a vandal. my edit However such statements by no means belong in an encyclopedia entry. Please also be aware that you (or other persons using your IP) have been vandalising pages Special:Contributions/24.121.48.137 -- Malo 19:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Harlow

I deleted the Nate Harlow page due to its massive misspelling and grammar. It should've been merged with the Red Dead Revolver article anyway. To call that vandalism is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.91.213 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 November 2005

Blanking an article, (regardless of it's content) is not the method used to delete or remove material on Wikipedia. Perhaps what you did is not vanalism, but that is only if your intentions are good, but even for mergers, there are procedures to follow. And in due time they will be sorted out. Take a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Malo 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Destructors

I'm curious about your reasons for reverting the changes made to The Destructors. The information didn't really seem to feel encyclopedic to me, and I supported 139.164.130.171's decision to remove it. Ferret-aaron 22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome

Perhaps you should take more time to read the edits made by new users before reverting them automatically as vandalism. I never expected to be aggressively attacked just for trying to help. There is no warning anywhere on wikipedia that says "if you're a new user, don't make any big changes or you'll be reverted without any reason and threatened with a ban". You should either write that down as policy or revise the way your anti-vandalism unit works. Just my 2 cents. 69.6.100.199 08:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have responsed to your comments on your talk page. Thanks for stopping by. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 09:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany

The language list is double. LaWa--84.44.192.40 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake, indeed it was, Thank you for pointing that out. Please try and use edit summaries. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 22:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok and thanks :) good night..mmhh..?...good day?... ;) --84.44.192.40 22:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvience, it was my mistake, I have corrected it. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. Guten nacht -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 22:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Vandalism is fun and it gives everyone something to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.167.5 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 21 November 2005

Don't you see that all your time and effort that you put into vandalizing pages could be used to actually better this project, rather than hinder it? The fewer vandals the fewer vandal fighters that are needed. Hence people like me can spend time doing more productive things on Wikipedia. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 09:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting aspect of vandalism is that you do not have to use your own computer. Blocking others computers is much funner especially if they make serious contributions to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is also a lousy encyclopedia. It is not known to be a good reference source by teachers (many of whom specifically say Wikipedia is not a good place to do research). Therefore vandalism of the site only allows others to realize there is no point in keeping Wikipedia up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.167.5 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 21 November 2005

There are many people working very hard daily to make wikipedia a better place. That means a better place for content, references, sources, images, etc. Yeah it's not perfect, but many people are trying to make it better. And it will get better, regardless of the critics, the cynics, and the vandals. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 09:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This anonymous fellow sounds like a real jerk. But I completely agree with him. I once used wikipedia on a paper, and I got an F. I will probably not come here again, as the man who made these remarks has shown me a whole new world of not-Wikipedia. So here's what I propose, everyone who does not like Wikipedia should not go to Wikipedia. On a side note, do you use this site to get factual information, Malo? Because I've seen some messed up entries lately. Stupid vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.192.51 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 November 2005

Please, don't come here with that IP and try to act like someone else. If you're not the same vandal, then you are someone that knows this other vandal. I'm not going to try and argue with you the same points I just made with him here. Must be one hell of a great education you two are getting at Gonzaga. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 09:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did a "nonsense" on my page! Was I at fault?

Hello, I am new around here. I was quite upset to find that a page I was working on was given a "nonsense" sign, and delated before I had a chance explain it's importance. The page was titled "Valiant's Story" and was part of a character project for a TV series, giving info. on the life and times of the character Valiant, thus "Valiant's Story". Should I have titled the page with a different name? I looked for guide-lines for such a page, and found none. I do not plan to redo the page, as I had a hard time re-finding the info that was delated. {I will use other means for the character guide} I just wanted to point out that the page in question was not "nonsense" just still in the working stages. As I said it would help new users if they could be given a little time to learn the rules, before someone pulls down a page. Is there anything I should do with the page "Valiant's Story"? Please let me know, I'm just learning the ropes. - LadyChantel

When I tagged that page as nonsense, there was only one word on the page "Valiant". Hence there was nothing there. If you then continued to add material without removing the nonsense tag then yes, an admin would delete your contributions. My apologies for tagging these pages so quickly but as they were they are not suitable. Please if you add material to such pages that makes them no longer fit the nonsense category, then by all means remove the nonsense tag. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 23:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing my talk

thank you very much for fixing my talk page! ;] the ironic thing is, i think i've reverted that user's page (or perhaps removed his/her filth) in the past! ;] --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 08:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

angry user from 66.229.17.88

WHY IS THE TERM "JUGGERNAUT" BIASERD AND THE TERM "POWERHOUSE" NOT BIASED?!?!?!?!?!?!??! YOU ARE A RACIST BUT I FIXED THE BARRY ZITO PAGE ANYWAY WITH NEW INBFORMATION AND FACTOIDS

YOUR WELCOME!!!!! STAND BY OUR PRESIDENT!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.88 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 November 2005

Congrats, your most recent edit here does make this article better. Please be aware that I did not revert the changes because of the wording of "powerhouse" but rather because of your changes seen here. And personally 'jagannâtha' looks like gibberish to me. And thanks for calling me a racist, we all know that was warranted. (*sarcasm*). Also I never called your edit biased, it just seemed suspect. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 07:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8) THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.88 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 November 2005

SORRY FOR THE PERSONAL ATTACKS 8( I WILL TRY TO CONFORM TO THE HIGH STANDARDS SET BY THE LOYAL WIKIPEDIA COMMUNITY!!!! 8) I AM 'COOKING UP A LITTLE SOMETHING' ON THE GRAVITY'S RAINBOW PAGE!!!!! SOMEONE WAS BEING POINT OF VIEW ABOUT THE BOOKFORUM PIECE ON PYNCHON AND SELECTIVELY INTERPRETING THE REPORTING IN THE PIECE TO SUIT BETTER THEIR HIDDEN AGENDA OF MEANING BEHIND THE CHAPTER BREAKS!!! 8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.88 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 November 2005

Maria Comnena

Thanks for fixing Maria Comnena. I placed a delete tag on the orignal page by accident instead of the redirect created by the WoW vandal. I self-reverted, but you got to it before I did. --Viriditas 14:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm sure you meant well, and I can see how it would be easy to see that page as vandalism, or just plain nonsense. I didn't realize it was a WoW sock puppet at the time, but all those strange edits close together, and I knew something wasn't right. Thanks for stopping by and saying hello. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 14:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Please leave me alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.211.70 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 November 2005

Please don't make edits like this or like this and I will not have any reason to bother you with vandalism warnings. -- malo ^(talk)/_(contribs) 23:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

➨ ❝**R E DVERS**❞ awards this Random Act Of Kindness Barnstar to **Malo** for reverting vandalism to my userpage.