User talk:MilkStraw532

Welcome to Wikipedia from Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Hi, MilkStraw532. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. You also might want to consider being "adopted" by an experienced user who would show you how wikipedia works through a program called adopt-a-user. Again, welcome! Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hello, and I hope you enjoy Wikipedia. One thing concerning your edit to Talk:Tobacco politics: if you look closely, you can see that the edit made by the user who doubted the affects of second-hand smoke (I can't remember their name), he actually wrote that comment 2 years ago, and has made no edits for a long time . Anyway, thanks for your edit anyway,feel free to ask questions and have fun! Willbat (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thanks, and keep editing! Willbat (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hart of Dixie talk page

Hi, Milkstraw. In regard to the article talk page, would you mind taking a look at the comments that have occurred since your last entry there and continue to comment to offer more input? The specific section to comment in at this point is Request for commentary: Formatting and content of "Critical Reception" as a Request for Comment has been started there. Thanks! Lhb1239 (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Hart of Dixie

There is a current RfC at the Hart of Dixie talk page. You are being notified because you have commented in the past on this article. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagined argument

G'day, I appreciate your support on the Talk:Primacy of the Roman Pontiff section. A person had entered into the article a rebuttal against an argument made by no one.

The rebuttal itself wasn't imagined, but the rebuttal addressed an imagined argument. Montalban (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Višňovský

You may not be aware that your comment made to the talk page was placed above the current discussion, and therefore is likely to be over-looked. You might consider relocating your comment into the body of the discussion lower down on the talk page. Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MilkStraw532 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, my ip address was blocked because it is believed im working on an open proxy, and I was wondering how to get unblocked. I use a private one, but I have been traveling for the holidays and maybe thats whats going on? Or maybe the admins blocked a range of ip's and mine fell in line with that. I read all the stuff on the block but I am still confused on the format to use to go about it and would appreciate any help i could get :).

thanks, MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Closedmouth (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bob Casey, Jr.

Hello, Thanks for your message! First of all, speaking of suggestions, it is helpful if you sign your posts when you make them on a talk page. That can done by typing four tildes (~). This allows people to know who is making edits. Also of help is making use of page histories. If you look at Bob Casey's page history, you will see that this edit reorganized the article, making the opening prose, in my opinion too long. Your edit added to the all-too-lengthy introduction. I therefore moved the text (different from deleted) out of the overly-verbose introduction and into a subsection. Actually, my timing was a bit off; Bonusgate technically broke after he was elected Treasurer, not while he was Auditor General. But again, using the edit history, one can clearly see that the text was moved. So, I am now putting the text under the Treasurer section; actually if you look at the page as of your last edit, you now put literally the extact same block of text under the 2002 gubernatorial campaign, meaning the page featured that block of text twice, and it also made no sense to put under the 2002 campaign section, as the story had not broken yet. Suggestions are wonderful, but I might suggest backing them up with a bit more thorough examination of the facts. Have a wonderful day! Best, EATC (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I am so embarrassed. Your right I did not take the time to read through it properly, it does flow better now. Thanks again,MilkStraw532 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be no embarassment! It happens to the best of us. Have a good day! EATC (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Harriman article

I appreciate your feedback on the article. I will work on the lead.Jacqke (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]