User talk:RUL3R/Archives1

Unhelpful tagging of Monterrey

Your intent was to help improve Wikipedia, however the tags you placed on Monterrey were excessive and unhelpful. The article is reasonably sourced and largely uncontentious. The top page tags were unhelpful as they did not direct people to areas of concern. And the inline tags were on petty statements, and there were too many of them. The article appears to be decently written, and the facts I checked were reasonably robust. It is better to do a moment's research with Google before adding a fact tag. If you can't find anything to support the statement then consider either tagging it or removing it completely. If the statement is likely to be contentious, it is usually better to remove it, but if it is a simple statement, then a tag would be appropriate. If the statement is really innocent or clearly obvious, then don't tag it all all. For example: "Grupo Multimedios operates 2 television channels in the city" is an innocent statement - not contentious - not worth removing or tagging. "Grupo Multimedios operates the leading television channels in the city" needs a source to support the claim of "leading" - so a tag would be appropriate, or simply remove the word "leading". "Grupo Multimedios were the first television company in Mexico" is a contentious statement that either needs a source or to be removed - a tag is not enough. Mirror sites copy our statements, but not our tags. Do you get the idea? Let me know if you want to talk it through some more. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From the food section:

Carne asada (grilled beef) on weekends remains one of the most cherished traditions in Monterrey's families. It is usually served with grilled onions, baked potatoes and sausages or chopped as tacos. Carne asada gatherings generally take place in the afternoons opposed to central Mexico tradition of having carne asada between 2 and 4pm. Locally brewed beer and cola soft drinks are an almost mandatory part of the weekly ritual. The traditional desserts, "glorias" and "obleas," made from goat milk are both traditional candies from Nuevo León.

How is that not written like a travel guide? Also, unreferenced.

From the public safety section:

Since 2003-2006, however, the city has seen its share of drug violence related to turf battles between warring cartels.

Informal, unreferenced, weasel words.

And that is on a quick check. I wait for comment. Thanks. RUL3R (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You do a quick Google check (these days Google is excellent for doing such quick checks, though for someone who wants to work closely on an article, a visit to the library is recommended) and then apply the common sense model I outlined to you. It's about making some informed judgments on the value of the statement and the usefulness of tagging. For the last section you mention - the drug wars, I put in a Google search for "Monterrey warring cartels" and found plenty of evidence to support the bulk of the drug war statement. I removed the bit about 2003-2006 as my search didn't reveal that, and pinning down a date requires an informed opinion, and is anyway not required. I changed the wording of "seen its share of" to "experienced" as possibly more formal, though that is debatable, and I moved the word "drug" from "violence" to "cartels" for clarity and better English. It took less than 5 minutes. The same approach can be done with the other statements. I'll assist you going through the other statements if you like. For the food section, I suggest trying a Google search on "Carne asada Monterrey", and using the book search facility, as you tend to get better food related sources from books than from the internet. Look here. I use an add on tool for Firefox called Wikipedia Cite which means I then only have to click on the source page and I get all the reference details in an appropriate format which I then paste into the article. Quick and easy. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 07:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am actually from Monterrey and I know first hand that most of what is written is true. The issue here is that any reader not from Mexico (which amounts to about 99.5% of the world population) is likely to be lost in the article. Aside of that, references in Wikipedia not only serve to cite a source, they also serve to avoid making additional searching elsewhere, that's a reason to link to them. I believe it makes no sense to say that it is OK to leave unreferenced statements just beacuse it can be found on Google in less than 5 minutes. I can acknowledge I overreacted with my tagging, but this article lacks many references. The history section has none, for example. RUL3R (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not saying that contentious statements should be left unsourced because it only takes 5 minutes work for the reader - I was saying that instead of tagging the article, do the 5 minutes work yourself and improve the article. Uncontentious statements, however, do not need to be sourced. Not every single statement needs sourcing - Wikipedia:Verifiability goes into more detail. It comes down to:

If the statement is basic and obvious, it doesn't need a source.

If the statement is likely to be questioned, then either tag it or source it.

If the statement is making a bold claim, then either remove it or source it.

Tagging alerts other editors that some research needs to be done. Some editors (I do this) will tag an article they are working on to remind them of statements they need to source later - I do this when working on potential Good Articles. On some articles I keep an eye on (Beer for example) I welcome somebody putting on a specific tag, as it draws my attention to a questionable statement. But considering that almost every article on Wikipedia has at least one contentious unsourced statement that could be tagged, mass tagging of such statements would overwhelm every editor who makes an effort at finding sources (such as myself). I am trying here to encourage you to get involved in improving the Monterrey article, and I'm willing to assist you in doing this as it's not that difficult, and would be better than just tagging. The article would improve, and you would feel good about your contribution. If you'd rather tag and walk away than edit the article, let me know, and I'll get on with something else. SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so far I have been able to find a couple of sources, made some additions to the article and slight corrections. I also reformatted some information, based on the format of the Manchester article, which was recently given WP:FA status. Let me know if my work complies better with policy. Thanks. RUL3R (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you. I will take a look at the Monterrey article shortly. SilkTork *^YES! 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Monterrey article

I've just a bit more work on it. The article is more problematic than first appears, and you are right to be concerned about it. I can see that you are doing some good work on it, and are bringing some order to it. Well done! I'll drop in later to see how things are developing. SilkTork *^YES! 11:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Getallthefacts.com

Since you commented on the AfD for this page you may wish to comment here, too. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Shakira's sales discussion

I already explained my point in her discussion page. I would like to know what you think about it. Thanks--Albes29 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hola, Me acabo de dar cuenta que hablas español. Realmente me alegra que le pidieras a los otros usuarios ir a la página de discusión de shakira para resolver el problema. Yo he tratado de explicarle mi punto de vista muchas veces y borra mis comentarios de su página de discusión. De nuevo, gracias por intervenir.--Albes29 (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Entiendo lo que me dices, yo trato de no violar ninguna regla, es por eso que pedí ayuda a otros usuarios para que me dijeran que hacer. Al parecer el usuario no está conectado o no quiere discutir sobre el tema. Como te dije antes, le dejé un mensaje en su talk page para explicarle mis puntos de vista y se limitó a borrar mi comentario. Creo que de momento es mejor esperar para ver que hace antes de reportarlo. Otra cosa, si no te molesta me gustaría que me permitieras escribirte cada vez que tenga alguna duda de edición en wikipedia. Llevo algún tiempo escribiendo pero hay muchas cosas que no se hacer. Si te fijas no tenía ni siquiera User Page, espero no te moleste que copiara un poco el diseño de tu página para hacer la mía. Muchas gracias por todo.--Albes29 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sinceramente no quería llegar a tener que reportarlo, pero si crees que es necesario estoy de acuerdo contigo. Esperemos a ver que pasa.--Albes29 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Necesito tu ayuda nuevamente. El usuario Eurotop1 y otro usuario más están dando problemas nuevamente con las ventas de Laundry Service. Mi inglés no es tan ueno y no se como explicareme, me gustaría que mediaras en estopara llegar a un acuerdo. Ellos han dejado comentarios en articles talk page pero siguen cambiándo las ventas antes de llegar a un acuerdo. Gracias--Albes29 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gracias nuevamente. Lo que dices en tu comenterio es exactamente lo que me habría gustado decir a mi, evidentemente tienes más armas que yo, me imagino que llevas bastante tiempo aqui en wikipedia. Espero lleguemos a un acuerdo.--Albes29 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyonce's I Am Tour.

Hola, necesito tu ayuda. Hay un problema en la página del Tour de Beyonce(I Am… Tour) que me gustaría que me ayudes a resolver. En es página ponen esto en el segundo párrafo: ¨As of August 2, 2009 Knowles tour has officially been ranked a # 1 concert attraction thanks to record attendance and an unprecedented multi-leg journey¨ y citan esta referencia: http://www.singersroom.com/news/4219/Beyonce-I-AM-Tour-Ranks-No1-Worldwide El problema es que esta referencia elaboró la nota mal. La hicieron a partir de un artículo de la Billboard que no dice exactamente lo que ellos interpretan. Este es el artículo de la Billboard: http://www.billboard.com/#/news/concert-charts-fierce-showing-by-beyonce-1003997011.story . Como puedes ver este artículo es el que el primer artículo toma como referencia, escrito por Bob Allen. Lo que pasa es que la interpretación que hacen no es la correcta. Por ningún lado dice que el Tour de Beyonce es oficialmente la atracciín #1 en el mundo. En la página de Wikipedia lo ponen de una forma como haciendo creer que la Billboard le dio el título al tour the Beyonce como el #1 en general, cuando en realidad se refiere a que el Tour fue el #1 durante esa semana en el Box Office( recaudación ) de la Billboard. Yo he tratado de aclararlo en le págian de wikipedia, diciendo que fue #1 esa semana solamente y he puesto la referencia de la Billboard que es la oficial, y el usuario Yashar1 lo ha revertido dos veces sin dar explicaciones. Yo le escribí a su talk page y no responde, simplemente deshace mis cambios. Lo que no entiendo es porque usan como referencia singersroom.com y no el artículo ariginal que es de la Billboard. Espero no molestarte mucho con esto. Gracias por tu ayuda.--Albes29 (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hola, Veo que has escrito en la página de discusión de este tema, Gracias. El usuario Yashar1 no deja de deshacer los cambios, le invito a discutir sobre el tema y no me hace caso. ¿ Que puedo hacer?. Gracias--Albes29 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Gracias por la ayuda, esperemos que deje de hacerlo.--Albes29 (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Cinemash

Hello RUL3R, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Cinemash has been removed. It was removed by 64.183.60.18 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 64.183.60.18 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

{{Universalforumofculures-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes ([[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]] 06:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes ([[User:Redwolf24|Redwolf24]]) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 The current date and time is 10 November 2024 T 11:49 UTC.

P.S. I like messages :-P

User JAMESJERLIN

I guess you have been tag teaming with TParis00ap on User talk:JAMESJERLIN.

Wikipedia needs all the editors it can find, and giving an editor a final warning when they may not have even figured out that they have a talk page seems pretty severe. I would encourage you to remove the final warning and lighten up a bit, maybe suggest mentorship for JAMESJERLIN. They may not even know what a reference is. I see that Google has 80 hits for Vadakkanadu, though some are from the newly created article here. Apteva (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Supersize Me Revert

Hi there, I should have provided a more detailed description of my change - I was removing some vandalism in the form of biased language. If you can look now, you'll see that the change I made has been made again (by someone else). I can assure you it was a genuine edit. I will log in next time I make an edit. Thank You.81.102.111.224 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Regarding your warning on my talk page, I am requesting that you take another look at the edit I made. As the tag instructed, I removed the promotional content. Thanks. 99.152.115.143 (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why deletion of the category for Israeli cheeses?

I have just created this page and within seconds it is marked for deletion! Why? There are other categories for cheeses of other countries, why not Israel? You marked it for deletion without giving any reason or even asking about it. It doesn't seem to be within the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespeakingcat (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Montes de Oca (county)

Please can you delete it, I have mistake to translate it from spanish (comarca -> is shire, not county -> condado). Sorry for the mistake. Montes de Oca (shire) --Autrigón (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RC: Nick Buckland (note: newly created page)

NOTE: Creator had blanked the page. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done the same thing many times. lol Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

?

Are you actually reading my edit comments? The material has been moved to Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians since thats what the passages are in reference to.24.201.120.170 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Ethics (Scientology). Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I am but a simple editor and admin here, keen to do justice to all parties. It does make it very difficult to assess the merits of your edits when you delete 37K of text with an edit summary "covered in sub articles", or words to that effect. Frankly, I don't have the time do go through a line-by-line analysis of whether this is so, and accordingly I request that you repeat your edits but with more specific information. You are obviously aware that all Scientology-related articles are still on article probation, recently reinforced by the ArbCom decision, and accordingly, to be fair to all parties, I urge you that if you repeat your edits, please give us mere mortals some chance of following the process. I'm sure you are well aware of the alternatives. Rodhullandemu 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Scientology. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Trying to be fair here, you will be aware that all Scientology-related articles are a bit of a hot potato here, and it is vital that all edits are visibly and scrupulously above-board. I have no issue with balance, but when you delete sourced content from a main article, please make it absolutely clear that it is replicated in a sub-article. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

re Sources for Scientology ethics.

Best to avoid primary sources, and use secondary sources satisfying WP:RS/WP:V instead. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Scientology beliefs and practices, you will be blocked from editing. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I Am… Tour dispute

Instead of edit warring, please contribute to the discussion at Talk:I_Am…_Tour#Protection_over_attendees_content_dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypersonic effect

Please read the talk page before reverting changes made by others. Thanks (KrodMandooon (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Editor review archived

Since it has been over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 05:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

KETV

The information you keep reverting to is from two separate events. I don't appreciate you totally ignoring my edits, since you don't have any idea what is and isn't the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JEDIMAN40 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

2010 in metal

Please look again: sources are all acceptable. 86.161.182.117 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Please also learn what vandalism is before accusing someone of it. If you look at the article on it, you'll note that if a non-fecetious reason is given, it cannot be vandalism. It only comes across as rude to link someone to a policy when you haven't actually read it yourself. Metalunderground and Blabbermouth are often used as sources on heavy metal music, both are perfectly acceptable, and if you believe otherwise take it to the relevant sources noticeboard, rather than blindly reverting and falsely accusing someone of vandalism for restoring sources. 86.161.182.117 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As to myspace: no, it's not when talking about things like, say, sources. When you're citing an artist's personal myspace page for information they themselves can be considered an authority on, then yes, it is, just as an artist's own personal website is. Again, do some research into sources beforehand, you'll find that context matters. 86.161.182.117 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

okay, okay, I'll stop the reverting now. Getting a bit carried away there. Myspace is unreliable for most things, I agree, but in this case it's as I say above: it's a page run by the artist themselves. So while it's not good for anything like genres (where the artist is a biased source) I can't see any reason not to use it for something purely factual, like an album release date. 86.161.182.117 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's only those sources you have issue with, why revert most of the page when only 7 of the sources are for myspace pages? 86.161.182.117 (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how would this sound: we remove the myspace references until something better becomes available, or something comes up to verify the specific myspace pages in question? Hopefully we can come to some agreement on this. 86.161.182.117 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome/Bienvenidos

Welcome to English Wikipedia and Wikiproject Mexico! We always need more contributors as Mexico is a big place with so much to see and experience! I have found it to be a good way to practice my Spanish reading (a weakness of mine) by reading resources in Spanish and writing or improving articles in English. Most of the new geography articles listed in WP:MX are my work. I also take detours into other stuff like pulque, mezcal, Santa Muerte :D and Talavera (pottery) when I get the urge. Current projects are rewriting Querétaro, Querétaro and Tepito and finding decent sources for an article on Chucho El Roto. What do you like to work on? Thelmadatter (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ... rewrite sounds harsh, but it is easier to me to write my own version... then meld the old one into my new one. By doing this, I get a very good sense of subject matter (part of the goal after all is to learn something), then I can assess what is already there better. Also, most articles in Wikipedia, esp. on Mexico, either have too few or no in-line citations. If I can find the same or similar information of something that is not cited or has a broken link as a cite, I will use my source. In the end, what I do is seriously expand and reorganize the article. Querétaro, Querétaro does have some citations, but almost all of them are to statistics pages, and to the Enciclopedia de Municipios de Mexico site (thank goodness for that site!, esp for smaller municipalities). If you want to get a sense of what I do... check out Veracruz, Veracruz, Cuernavaca, Pachuca, Hidalgo, Puebla, Puebla and Oaxaca, Oaxaca before and after I got my hands on it. Veracruz is the most recent. (Be aware that I do all the writing in Word then copy/paste into WP when Im ready.) Im not completely happy with the sources I found so far on Querétaro... much more online for the other cities Ive done so far. Im lacking information about Q's history post-Independence and need more information about its economy, esp. how it is managing to keep its centro nice and colonial and planning development in an organized way. I think its a good example of how to grow and keep your soul (so to speak). The opposite would be Toluca. Resists all change...until change runs over it. (I lived there five years and its a complete dismother).Thelmadatter (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

ji ji ji ji "dismother" is kind of Mexican. Im an English teacher here and one of my students taught it to me... dont know if he invented it or not. Manchester is a good article and I try to follow that basic format, though I have to admit, I didnt think to put etymology in the history section... makes sense. Could/should put coat-of-arms/glyph info there as well. Ive been putting that info in the lead. Its next to impossible to find sources about Mexican cities in English, except for Mexico City (and its still better in Spanish) and perhaps GDL or your hometown. For the rest of them, forget it. I think only two, maybe three, of the 20-something sources I cite for the Veracruz article are in English. Thats one of the reasons these articles dont get developed like they should. You pretty much have to be bilingual to write them, esp. to write them half-decently. When you get to smaller and non-tourist places like Villa del Carbón or Ixmiquilpan, there is no way youre gonna find sources in English. Even for tourist places like Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca or Pátzcuaro, having access to Spanish language sources makes for a much better article.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK... but give me a few days. Im sorting through and organizing the materials I found on line, which is a lot of text. I needed two days just to go through the Enciclopedia de Municipios de Mexico entry on Querétaro as whoever wrote it put in a WHOLE lot of flowery language and information which would not be acceptable in English Wikipedia. If you like, you can move the etymology/coat of arms info from the lead to a paragraph in history of the Mexican cities I have done to make them look more like the Manchester article. I like your enthusiasm!Thelmadatter (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just put up my edits on Querétaro, Querétaro. Only doubled the information. :( Working on the page's gallery in commons.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration case

Not sure if you are aware of the closed Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. Just an FYI. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of source at Disconnection

Please be careful about removing sources, as you did at the article Disconnection, here [1]. The source still satisfies WP:V, with or without an active URL. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, sorry about that. Hadn't read WP:DEADLINK. I was about to restore them per talk page but got an edit conflict. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Please be more careful about that in the future. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Shakira

Hola, te quería pedir un favor. Resulta que he tenido problemas con un usuario ( http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:201.221.186.34 ) que no deja de cambiar las ventas de Laundry Service en español sin poner fuentes.Le he advertido varias veces pero sigue haciéndolo. Que debo hacer? Gracias.--Albes29 (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bueno, no conozco exactamente el procedimiento en wiki en Español. Pero lo que encuentro es que puedes reportar vandalismo en [2] y algún administrador verá que procede =). Saludos. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Your audacious warning on my talk page

My change to the Merlin page was indeed very much constructive, and I even revealed its importance in my edit summary. I sincerely doubt that you even read what I added because you reverted the article back to its unfortunate state a mere two seconds after I made a genuinely exquisite contribution. Lord Manshoon (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

re Possible edit-warring at Scientology controversies

I would suggest engaging them in discussion at the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you like, I could set up a Request for Comment at the article's talk page? Cirt (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

explain plese

why are you revertng me? 66.157.232.247 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Check again your talk page. I have explained. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am talkin about wich person? I am writng about many persons. wich one thing do you not beleeve? 66.157.232.247 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Turkiate society

Hi, Jimmycardiel's comments there seemed reasonable. I undid your reversal of them. Why did you remove them? LadyofShalott 23:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

MM odd. I believe I haden't seen it was the talk page. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then please slow down, and strike your final warning from the editor's page. LadyofShalott 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) LadyofShalott 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dodge Viper edit

????????? I didn't introduce any biographical information or libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.181.197 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A little more time before rolling back

Hi RUL3R. Thanks for your efforts regarding reversion of vandalism. Your desire to create a high-quality encyclopedia is greatly appreciated. However, some rollbacks you did recently were inappropriate and I'd like to ask you to take a few more seconds before deciding to do a rollback. Reference this reversion you did, which should not have been rolled back. It was not vandalism, and rollback is to be used only for vandalism. Instead, it should have been marked for speedy deletion under criterion G7 as a page that was blanked by its author. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Regards. --Shirik (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

That wasn't vandalism, they really are sharp if you step on them. Maybe biologists don't care about that, but for regular people it's the most important thing to know about them and should be in the intro section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.131.175 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While I acknowledge that your edit was not in bad faith, the tone seemed childish, and you provided no reliable sources. Please address these 2 issues and your contribution won't be reverted. You can use a better prose and tag it with {{cn}} and it stands a better chance. Cheers. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

userpage

thanks for the userpage help Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome =). > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert in 10 seconds? R U kidding?

I am really curious what motivated you to revert my recent edits in toto without explanation.

I corrected numerous grammatical errors, sought to reorganize some material--moving career info to the Business heading, where the remainder was. I removed duplicative material.

Rather than an instant revert, you could have gone change by change and explained your reasoning.

I see that you're not an administrator. What exactly is going on?

Already replied on your talkpage. Cheers. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

why I made my recent edit to Adonaist

to preserve the hierarchal nature of the categories, I put the entry in the most fitting category, i.e. "Names of God in Judaism". as an example, if you go to "Dieties in the Hebrew Bible" you will find "Names of God in Judaism" as a sub-category of that category. do you see my reasoning? --76.24.220.50 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading WP:CAT:

Articles should be placed in the lowest level category possible. They do not need a category declaration toward every category that would logically contain it. A single, well targeted category declaration will place that article in a category which will itself be properly contained (subcategorized).

By policy, the categories that should remain are Category:Tetragrammaton and Category:Yahwism. I will strike the notice from your talk page. If you wish to discuss the categorization of the article we can continue on Talk:Adonaist. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your questions at my RfA. I hope I've managed to answer them to your satisfaction. If you'd like me to clarify or expand, please just point it out to me and I'll be more than happy to. Merry (last 41 minutes of) Christmas! HJMitchell You rang? 23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I will not edit any more posts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.96.226 (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

My RFA →→→

Dear RUL3R, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk Scientology

I can't find any other resources except for the one cited (regarding some practitioners failing to admit treatment success because of costs). The discussion is continuing and you have been very clearheaded so far. We could use your input and if you have any other resources, it would help a great deal. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am currently fine with the text as it is, although it may be dropped altogether per Jayen's comments con the article talk page. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. 38.109.88.194 (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop treating me like this

Please just stop. I am sorry for whatever wrong I did to you. I have not done anything to anyone to be banned. I was banned before and I served that ban and it is in the past. Now there is no reason for me to be banned just because some people hate me for no reason. I didn't do anything wrong and this ban attempt is false and vicious. Please don't do this to me anymore with supporting banning me for no reason. Please also stop making such a point of me contacting other users. I have gone through all the proper channels and done all of that numerous times. I did every possible thing to resolve this after I was being harassed and attacked and it was always ignored and every single admin refused to look at it. So please sir do not lecture me about the holier than thou etiquette here at this site when it is NOT WORKING and is FAILING people like me.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVASSING. Nobody here has anything personal against you. The discussion to block you indefinitely wouldn't have arised had you not started making such a big deal out of a failed RfA. If you had not started a jihad against people you felt were against you, none of this would be happening. Again, we hold nothing personal against you. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You are making false statements on me. I have done nothing wrong at all. This is a totally false accusations and false abuse report against me. Look, I am sorry for anything I said to make you mad at me. Please do not ask for me to be banned.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely not mad at you. Please don't be so frustrated. Your apology will probably be accepted by the community. Just calm down a little. Don't worry. We can all work this out peacefully. =) > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope so.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful

Recently you engaged in an edit war at Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps. I'm excusing the misuse of undo as it's likely you misinterpreted the IP user's edits as vandalism. In future you should do your best to discuss issues early on to prevent escalation, particularly when the other person is new and unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing procedures. Essentially, remember to assume good faith. Thanks, NJA (t/c) 12:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I just believed the user was adding himself to the list. Which apparently he was successful at... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, just checked. Tagged the article for lack of sources. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Hey, RUL3R. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- Vatsan34 (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Civilization Network article

Thanks for correcting my Civilization Network article, it was a really stupid sentence! --Jonas128 (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Open chapel or Capilla abierta??

I just looked at Wikipedia:Article titles but didnt get much help. Im working on an article about open chapels/capilla abiertas (the side chapels built in many churchs from the 16th century in Mexico for the indigenous) and Im wondering if the article should be named in English or Spanish (with the other as a redirect). What do you think?Thelmadatter (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish with an English redirect, I believe. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 15:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Scientology. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is a troll, there are better ways to deal with it than getting into a talk page edit war. —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Hi RUL3R. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, RUL3R. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

List of YouTubers

The List of YouTubers is being nominated for deletion again. I don't know why. It's been nominated so many damn times. Take a look here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, RUL3R. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)