User talk:Wikiuser100/archive 2 (2009)

PARC (company)

Just a note to say that I think your recent edits to the PARC (company) article are well done. Citations would be helpful, however. Are you in a position to add any? Pzavon (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your acknowledgement. You're correct, preponderantly my changes were mere copy edits, which I have long experience at. In terms of content, I was just a passer-by who noticed the article needed work and have only a bit more than a layman's familiarity with PARC and its history. Cites would indeed be welcome. Some of the figures named in it popped up on blogs I ended up at checking elements of the content. Maybe a shout out to one of them might yeild welcome result. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not usually considered to be appropriate citations, although I suppose they could be sources of information about more appropriate citation sources.

With regard to your question on my Talk page about an automated method of letting someone know that they have a response on someone else's Talk page, as far as I know there is no such thing. If I leave a note on your Talk page, I should add that page to those I am watching. Then I'll see that a change has been made to your page and can investigate whether it is a response to my comment. Pzavon (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know blogs are not viable as cites. I was merely observing that figures germane to PARC popped up at them while was doing some bona fides checking. My implied suggestion was that you might hook up with someone via a block who could put some quality effort (from a knowing point of view, with viable cites) into the article.

Re using Watch as a means of flagging changes to personal Talk pages one has left comments/questions at, if that's the best means, so be it. I was hoping that there was some mechanism to altert the commenter/enquirer like that which notifies the page owner there is new content on their page. A nice clear colored pop-up when one goes to Wikipedia saying "Hey, you've been replied to!" or such. Somewhere down the road. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood your question. If you leave a message on my talk page, I do get a flag telling me that something has been posted there. I don't think I set any special option to enable that; I think it is standard. But it does not work in the other direction; you getting a flag if I reply on MY talk page to a note you left there. Pzavon (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you have it, the last case: I leave you a note on your page, you reply on it, I never know. Or, as it is going here, I get notified when you respond to my replies but you never know (without being triggered by a possible positive hit when you see action on my Talk page) that I have responded to you. Too bad. It would be nice. Thanks for your feedback. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace

Your edits at the above page are begining to look like an edit war. If you wish to make major changes to a FA please discuss first with the primary editors on the talk page. Thank you. Giano (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion here.

Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists

The article has already been deleted several times. Wikipedia is not a database of best of lists (and, we're not allowed to reproduce the entire list anyway due to copyright concerns). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not how it works here. See this. And the previous deletion discussion is here. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can can undo the redirect yourself, but note that it's under the wrong title so it will have to be moved to "The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it here. I'll give you a few days to improve the page, but note that it has been deleted many times. Personally, I don't see what the point is. We can't reprint the list and what is there to write about it other than trivia? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between a list of winners of a major sports trophy and a story published in an edition of a magazine. It works just as well as an external link. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no authority at all, but there previously has been consensus established that the list is not notable enough for it's own article. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been acting imperiously, I saw that you had recreated a page that had been deleted before and I didn't think you had added anything that brought the page up to notability standards. As well, I have been doing things anyone can do. In my first edit, I redirected the page [1], which can be achieved by replacing the content with #REDIRECT[[(insert link)]]. That can easily be undone by clicking the history icon and viewing the page history and then you can view any version you like and even revert back to a certain version. For more info see this. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the version you created. Just click the "edit this page" button to get the code. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that. I moved everything to a new title per the page naming conventions. That is the exact page you created, it just has a different title. If you wanted to move it back (which I don't advise because the old title went against the naming conventions), just click the "move" button. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was more concerned with the (List) at the end. A disambiguation is only needed when there are multiple articles with the same title, ie. Jack Smith. For the "Rolling Stone's" portion, I don't really care, but I was just following the format used on similar pages. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 04:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time

Be advised that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_100_Greatest_Guitarists_of_All_Time determined that this article, under a slightly different name, should be deleted. I will propose it again. --Bejnar (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Urchin

I thought the same thing... there appear to be several separate instances of vandalism separated by a few valid edits. I tried to revert one, but got rid of your content fix in the process. Yeech. Quantumobserver (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. We're square. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sears Tower

I am an admin, but I only protected the article from moves; the article is still editable. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was. Given its two-day edit history (since the renaming story broke) it could use a break from that, too. Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falls of Clyde

See Talk:Falls of Clyde. Please comment. doncram (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet bend / weaver's knot

I believe some encyclopedic info was lost from Sheet bend#Method in the 22 March cleanup. You may want to look in on Talk:Sheet bend#Weaver's knot and comment. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea

You appear to have removed some info I added to the Guinea (UK coin) page. Care to tell me why? It was accurate and relevant.Cross Reference (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give crab stick a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. I have undone this change, as the most common name in English for the subject is "crab stick". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steinmetz

Nice tweaking of information you did on the Charles Proteus Steinmetz article. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. He is a very interesting character. I see you caught my typo before I did. Good eyes!Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to keep working on it? It's definitely a candidate for featured status. There's lots of good information about him. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Channels of the Hawaiian Islands

I'm sure you meant well with this edit but I have a question about the deletion of the whaling ships. This is a significant period of Hawaiian history and relates directly to the channel of Lahaina Roads. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question taken in good faith. Reference to whalers in Lahaina Roads re-inserted. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Aloha. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know a lot about the topic? I should get around to adding images... Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some from history, most from doing alot of paddling around in the Roads. I'd imagine a shot of a cruise ship (fairly common) moored there, or a military vessel (less so, but more relevant historically, certainly to the content presently under the heading), would be illustrative. Unfortunately any I have are not of sufficient quality (being pre-digital era, and low resolution at that).

I don't know anything about adding images to articles that are not already part of Wikipedia Commons, but a quick scan of online images using Google Image Search turns this vintage photo up: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h99000/h99555c.htm. An old black-and-white of but modest resolution it at least clearly portrays an array of naval ships in Lahaina Roads.

A further scan of Google image results turned up this one: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/dd413.htm , presently embedded in a Wikipedia article. The relevance of this non-Roads photo is that it is property of the US National Archives, and evidently regarded as fair game to employ at Wikipedia. The status of the Lahaina Roads photo, also from the www.history.navy.mil website, is unclear. Perhaps it too may be used (whether or not it is property of the N.A.).

Last, a link to this page which lists a compilation of the work of the photographer who shot the Lahaina Roads image at issue: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/arttopic/photgphr/photog-l/ts-loo.htm.

I hope you find this helpful. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I just got home, so give me another hour or so to review it. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Those aren't bad, and perhaps we can use them. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not great, indeed. At least the first, the only really appropriate image, puts the Roads into their geographic context and ships within that. Man, what an eyeful! I cannot imagine looking out one morning from Front Street and waking up to such a flotilla. In modern days it is a treat to see a single cruise ship, missile frigate, or submarine, two at once being a crowd. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the beach in Maui when the sea-based X-band radar rolled into the channel in 2006. It was extremely impressive, and had the effect of making one want to surrender unconditionally just by looking at it! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew such a thing existed. From the looks of it, I'd surrender to it, too. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I first saw it at night during a massive lightning storm over Kahoolawe. There were thousands of strikes over the island per hour while the SBX was floating in the ʻAlalākeiki channel. From the shoreline, I was watching the lightning bolts filling the sky reflect off the gleaming dome of the SBX. I'm still kicking myself for not having a camera at the time. That was one of the freakiest, science-fiction-like scenes I've ever witnessed. Anyway, it's all over the news right now because of current events, described by one website as "X-Band Versus Kim Jong-il". Seriously, until you see this thing with your own eyes, its hard to get your mind around it. And that's what was so interesting. It looked so out of place, my mind had trouble making sense of it. I wonder if this was related to inattentional blindness in some way. If we see something new and different that is outside the boundaries of normal awareness, how do we react to it? Viriditas (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a story. I once saw a similar storm - no SBX - in the channel behind Molokini and Kahoolawe (as viewed from Maalaea). It was wild enough, a constant bristle of lightning, constant. Indeed, it would be hard to wrap one's mind around the SBX on its own, that much moreso given the circumstances. Wikiuser100 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Mount Katahdin. Thank you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Appalachian Trail. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Snopes, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. The Snopes article is mildly controversial, so stuff is occasionally blanked for bad reasons; that you changed two words while removing sourced material didn't really stand out. --McGeddon (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Thanks for the level-headed response. No harm intended. Appreciate your vigilance. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter lemon

Hi, when removing an unencyclopedic list of manufacturers, here, you also removed useful categories and the stub tag. I would respectfully ask you to be careful in your edits. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your contributions to historical articles, and in particular your investigation and discussion of the Wappinger issue, I award you the Barnstar of Diligence. Many thanks for all your contributions! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am star struck. And diligently combing an uncooperative Internet Explorer history for a page with several other alternative spellings of Wappinger I encountered after the page move, further clouding any hope of identifying specifically the original permutation but reinforcing the consenus of what emerged and was adopted across the landscape by those speaking White tongues. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I've moved the etymology to a different section in the article and added a couple of references. Looking forward to further expansion! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Added to it. I must say that the alternative "weapons bearer" suggestion seems a bit of a stretch compared to the persistence of variants of "easterner" that are all reasonably similar to one-another and generally consistent.

For a demonstration of this do a word search (using the parameter "wapp" as shorthand) of this document:http://www.archive.org/stream/documentsrelativ13newyuoft/documentsrelativ13newyuoft_djvu.txt - a compendium of scores of original Dutch documents beginning in 1630. Note the early persistence of "Wapping" and "Wappingh" in particular, as well as prolific early use of the full "Wappinger", a natural expansion of the name of a place to that of its inhabitants, as in New York yeilding New Yorkers. Or, it seems in the instance, that of a tribe name to its members.

It really makes the very clearly spelled and pronounced "wapendragers" appear to be an unlikely root for a corruption to "wappings" (et al).

Still can't find that page with several more variants of the name (consistent with those for Easterner). I don't know how pages one visits can disappear from their IE history but I know it happens. Quite maddening. Will add them if it seems relevant should a link turn up. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source stating the earliest "Wappingers" spelling was in 1762 from Nimham himself, but if you have a reliable source that puts it earlier, by all means put it in. I agree that the wapendragers one is unlikely, but it's worth mentioning.

Anyway, no rush on this. The article has been around for years, so it can wait a bit longer for the right sources. Thanks again for the additions. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further (strong) suggestiveness of the "Wap" in "Wappinger" being rooted in the Algongian/Lenape term for "Easterner" is the following glossary, from a 1885 compendium of Lenape legends (the Wappinger being a Lenape people):

Wapallendi. IV» 52. East some. lVap,t9aX\ allende^^omt, Wapanaki. Ill, 18. Eastern land. IVap, east; akit land. Wapanapi. Ill, 19. Eastern manly, ^f^/, east or white ; tf/r, man. Wapaneken. IV, 48. East going; together. JVap^ east ; tee Ektn, Wapanen. 111,9* Easterly, ff/?/, east. Wapanand. V, 29. The easters. Wi/, east. Wapanichan. IV, 32. East moving. IVap^tzsIL, Wapaniwaen. IV, 12, 28.east he goes. IVap^ east; aan, to go. Wapaniwi. Ill, 6, 16. Easterlings. IVap, east ; nv', substantive verb suffix. Wapashum. V, 45. White big horn. IVap^ white ; wsckummo^ horn. Z. Wapatinep. Ill, 13. East was or bright. IVap, east; preterit termination. Wapawaki. IV, 51. East rich land. Wapawullaton. IV, 50. East possessing. ffTi/, east; wmHaion, to possess. Wapayachik. V, 59. >^^ite or east coming. IVap, east ; payat^ q. y. Wapekunchi, V, 40. East sea from. IVap^ east ; donbtfaL Wapkicholaa. IV, 38. White crane pr big bird. IVap, white ; tsek^ ien, bird. Waplanowa. Ill, 12. White eagle. IVoaplanne^ a bald eagle. Z. Waplowaan. V, 29. East, north, do go. IVap, east; iowan, noith, aan^ to go. Wapsipajrat. V, 40. Whites coming. IVap, white ; payai^ q. y. WapUlegawing. V, 20. East of Talega at. IVlap, east ; iaUga^ q. y.

From: http://www.archive.org/stream/lenpandtheirleg00unkngoog/lenpandtheirleg00unkngoog_djvu.txt

The second most popular iteration of the root "wap" is for the term "white", appearing four times to "east's" sixteen. Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you

just knocked a large chunk out of Currier and Ives and I disagree with your decision. Such trivia sections are found in a lot of articles, sometimes called In popular culture or something. I didn't wish to undo your edit without chatting with you first, but i think that all the interested editors there should be involved and that means, to me, using the talk page there. See you there. Carptrash (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your temperate response to my edits. See you there, too. Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that trivia about how the subject of the article appears in songs and movies, etc. is a good thing. I suspect that we just disagree, probably always will, on this point. However I am content to let your edit stand as is unless a huge clamoring appears on the talk page. Then, in the words of Douglas MacArthur, "I shall return." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we do disagree. "Trivia" and miscelleneous pop culture references are discouraged by Wikipedia. Relevant content appropriately integrated into an article's text, that is a different thing. Which is why I made the edit I did (and worked some historical quotes in), and wrote what I did on the Talk page. Properly integrated, a selection of best examples can have a place. A separate heading serving as a fly trap and catch-all, no, in lines with Wikipedia standards and expressed preference on the matter. Do appreciate your restraint and reserved manner, though. Much credit to you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School Type

X0X9 has added "business school" in the info box in the type field for a few dozen schools in addition to the Columbia Business School. I reverted some of them, but then he started putting them back and I didn't want to get into an edit war about it. I read the infobox template description and it seemed pretty clear to me that "type" means public/private and possibly undergraduate/graduate. Is that how you read it too? Before I try to go clean up this huge mess, I want to make sure I'm not the only one interpreting it that way. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you on this. When I saw your revert at the Wharton School I assumed you were in error (as the entry "Private Business School" seemed both appropriately descriptive and innocuous enough). But as you point out the Wikipedia inforbox template description for type seems sufficiently clear: "Type: Public, private, four year, undergraduate, graduate, etc." While it does not expressly prohibit adding additional discriptors such as "business" it does not inferentially invite them. To assume it does is rather like responding to an entry for a line item for "Sex" by saying "Yes," "Indeed, much," or "No thank you," rather than the expected and desired "Male" or "Female".

It is interesting to note that none of the line items for the university infobox address the kind of school one is (in terms of its curriculum, such as "law", "medicine", "divinity", etc.,) let alone any list of concentrations (in majors offered, or fields a school specializes in, such as technology at Cal Tech). Whether this is intentional or a failing of the template or not is, however, beside the point. The Type field as it is defined appears to square with your interpretation of it. Good luck with the clean-up. Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this particular user does a lot of edits in the "mostly harmless" category. I didn't want to push it further right away; I figured I'd wait to see if anyone else reverted it elsewhere and get a second opinion. In spite of the mostly harmless nature of most of his recent edits, this guy's on his sixth username since his original one was blocked. I'm trying to convince him that the appropriate response to being blocked for using sockpuppets isn't to keep creating new accounts, but I'm not sure he quite gets it yet. The cleanup is a secondary issue for me at the moment; I think I'm going to continue trying to convince him to stop creating new accounts first. Thanks for the review and second opinion; I appreciate someone who doesn't have a history with this editor taking a look. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, six accounts. Good luck getting through with the character. But do continue with your clean-up of the Type heading, as such mis-info can and does spread virally, as you know. One user sees "private business school" somewhere, the next thing you know they change thirty. As someone (ahem) has already gotten the bright idea to.

I see the X0X9 username is just four days old. And that XOX9 also has a penchant for adding capitals to Internet addresses (that will not display as capitals), such as changing www.rbc.com (for the Royal Bank of Scotland) to www.RBC.com. Is there a BOT to revert that sort of thing? If not, perhaps you can also suggest they find a more profitable use of their time. Like going back and changing all the pages they've done it to. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I hadn't thought about it spreading further and other users picking it up. Crap. I will start slogging through them. I know he did some of them from IP addresses without logging in (and he changes IP addresses about twice a day), so I'm not sure I'll find them all. He's been changing the URLs in infoboxes for a few weeks (starting with another account) and almost none of those edits have been reverted. I've never used a BOT, but it might be worth looking into for this. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from the sound of things it may be a-bot time for it. There is something very un-Wikipedia like going on with this person if they are that relentless in using multiple IPs/sock puppets, etc. Clearly they don't get it. Good luck! Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, he undid about half of what I did last night from an IP. I had gone through and also changed links to Private school to Private university, which seemed a better match. It's not worth the edit war, and he's proven previously that he doesn't have a problem going back to undo things someone else did with a bot. I need to deal with the underlying problem first and then think about cleanup later. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See XOX9 was suspended today. Guess he'll go the IP route Good luck reasoning with him. He clearly does not get it. Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Hannaford Bros. Co.. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit and is especially useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. BMRR (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Aonach Mòr. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A8 UDI 14:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason had been stated; undo reverted. Situation resolved. Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munson

I re-added it.--Yankees10 17:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good compromise. ;)

Anyone else's Infobox but Gehrig's, Munson's, and Jeter's and I'd have been inclined to delete it, too. Cheers.Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry for removing it, I wasnt thinking, thanks.--Yankees10 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

River Avon (Bristol)

You may not know taht the lead is a summary of the whole article so information is frequently repeated in the lead, Please read WP:LEAD. At the moment the summary is incolpete, but i have reverted your edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linked dates

Dear Smack: Thank you so much for delinking irrelevantly linked dates. Goodness only knows what possesses enthuisastic editors to turn them into links to begin with; it is great to have a Bot take care of the chore of undoing them. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It used to be the standard for all dates to be linked. This created a lot of work for those of us that wanted to add data tables containing dates. The same obsessives who go around unlinking dates, used to go around linking them (often messing up table format in the process).--Toddy1 (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a Pork pie! Pork pies promote sincerity through meaty goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Pork pies are wonderfully delicious!

Promote sincerity by spreading pork pies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Indeed, date links are a messy business. Unfortunately, new editors appear unfamiliar with the current convention. Happily, Senor Smack undoes their naive enthusiasm for making links out of every word in an article regardless of their appropriateness.

We all start somewhere. Thanks for the pie. Keep up the good work. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hand disambiguation page reversions

Hello, Wikiuser100. You have new messages at ShelfSkewed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.