This page is an archive of my talk page. Please do not edit this page. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 18:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome!

Hello, AlbinoFerret, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Telford's Folly ( talk) 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

In a recent edit to the page Doctor Who (1996 film), you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. -- Telford's Folly ( talk) 08:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the information. I did check to see if the spelling of those words at www.merriam-webster.com which lists both English and American equivalents of some words. Do you have a resource that would list all possible spellings of those words that were replaced? The subject may be about Dr Who, which is a British tv character, but the film is not. It was aired in Canada first. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 14:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI, Canadian English tends to use British spellings more often than American ones. As well, the whole Doctor Who topic is considered to fall under British English. (If you're using Firefox as a browser, you might wish to consider installing the various optional dictionaries. I find having British, Canadian, and U.S. English available helps when spell-checking different articles.) -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, I will and attempt to see what language the article represents. But, you reverted an article on Casio, a Japanese camera maker. Don't tell me that the language for that should be UK English. The article started out using American English as the size of the camera is stated as about an inch. [1] AlbinoFerret ( talk) 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Generally speaking, one shouldn't change spelling for an established article unless there is a compelling reason to do so. As well, units of measure aren't necessarily an indicator of the appropriate language (and a Japanese subject would default to metric at any rate). Hope this helps. -- Ckatz ^chat _spy 03:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

But it does appear that an UK editor did convert the article. [2] England uses the metric system, before his edit the article was using inches, then he changed it to metric. The spelling of therefor in this sentence "They come with a small amount of internal memory and therefor are not bundled with a memory card." also shows US english. Am I correct that since there is no Japanese version of english the article should have remained as it was. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 12:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Fenton Art Glass Company do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'groups\.yahoo\.com' (link(s): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fenton-glass/) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot ( talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Westmoreland Glass Company requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Victao lopes ( talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for helping out on that article. I had to rewrite it after someone plagarized off of Fenton's website, and I'd been hoping someone would come along and edit the article.

FYI, the reason that the bot removed your work was because one of the links was to a Yahoo Groups page, which isn't normally accepted on here, from what I've seen.

Also, regarding external links: the links to outside pages don't have the pipe character ("|") in them, so an external link should be like this: [http://www.websitelocation.com Text To Display For The Link]. Internal links to other Wikipedia articles do use the pipe character between the article name and text to display, so those are all right.

Anyways, if you have any further questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello Kilz. I see you're back at work on the Office Open XML page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.99.74 ( talk) 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I do not know a Kilz, and I am not him. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 00:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

How do you feel about article deletion as per WP:BLP, WP:TABLOID, WP:TONE, and all that is holy? 129.15.127.253 ( talk) 04:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it possible to just use WP:TABLOID to nominate the article. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't overuse the fact template by asking for citations of thing that do have no added value when a reference is added. Wikipedia is not about adding citations for every written word. References are only required when a fact might be challenged. You added the fact tag for a stament that the CEO's advised to not further proces appeals. This is actual fact (which you could have bothered to look up yourself easily in stead of adding template tags) and of course will never be challenged. If you want to challege the stament yourself then not only add the template but also challenge them on the talk page. For staments of fact citation can be used bvut should not be required by adding citation tags. The Office Open XML article already now has a ridiculous amount of 115 citations because for every word written now complelty unnescesary citations are requested. hAl ( talk) 18:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

By placing the fact template I am in fact challenging the claims. Place the references or remove the claims. It is not the responsibility of other editors to research if claims made by you are correct. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Just an advice: Don't ever answer to sockpuppet suspicions directed against you unless they are on WP:SSP. Just a waste of time. If it is clear that you are not a sockpuppet you might even consider to report your case yourself. -- Saint-Louis ( talk) 14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the advice, I really have no idea what to do. The problem with reporting this sockpuppet case, is that there isn't one even by their own admission. I am just stuck as I see it. How would I go about reporting something that isn't even being accused? AlbinoFerret ( talk) 14:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

A good reason why someone should not bring a case against themselves is that no real proof is required to be found guilty of being a sockpuppet. The people who will accuse you can come up with lies and the lies will be believed. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bronze may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[saxophone]]s from [[phosphor bronze]] (3.5 to 10% tin and up to 1% phosphorus content).<ref>{{cite |url=http://www.sax.co.uk/signature-custom-alto-sax-phosphor-bronze-big-bell.ir }</ref> Bell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 01:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Why did you remove others comments? [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Edit conflict AlbinoFerret ( talk)

Okay, be careful of these. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing it out, I apologized for it happening, it was not intentional. I had to many tabs open and saved the wrong one. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 18:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC) reply

You should state your position on the tag in the "position" section as well :) -- Kim D. Petersen 16:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I know, but I am working as an election judge in early voting so I cant do as much as normal, I normally work out of my house so I am at the computer all day. I will be putting my position in later today. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 18:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history at Electronic cigarette shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

You have no consensus. In fact previous consensus was against this. You could try a RfC. Next revert we go to 3RR. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

A rfc is a good idea, Ill look into it. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 16:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I didnt need consensus to do the initial edit. Your second revert was of a page that had never existed before, so I did not revert. I have 1 revert of the page, how is that edit warring? AlbinoFerret ( talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Its interesting that we should need an RfC because Doc James doesn't like a specific version of the article. What happened to getting article consensus first? -- Kim D. Petersen 17:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Once more it is a Pot, Kettle, Black situation. Doc James wants to enforce his version, so he edit-wars, and doesn't go to talk until late in the war - and then he puts out warnings. Just as with the POV tag. -- Kim D. Petersen 17:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I just reported him for breaking 3rr. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 17:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, he didn't. At least not the bright line WP:3RR. You are allowed 3 reverts, and Doc James stopped just before reaching 4. -- Kim D. Petersen 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Your really not allowed any reverts, stopping at two can get you a ban. 3 is worth filing for because its edit warring. AlbinoFerret ( talk) 18:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Correct, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Kim D. Petersen 18:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I technically only reverted once, the second revert Doc did was changing the page back while I was in the middle of changing it back the first time. Its what really points to edit warring, he didnt even wait to see what changes I was making to be complete. I am editing on a laptop and the screen is so small I cant do all the cutting and pasting in one move. It takes two edits. The edit he reverted the second time didnt even exist before, I did it in reverse order. AlbinoFerret ([[User talk:AlbinoFerret#to