![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
![]() | This is Archive_2 covering 2009 and earlier. |
Hello. I just wanted to remind you of
Doing about 15 edits separately can really clutter up
watchlists and the article's
history. Please keep this in mind in the future. Thank you
• S • C
• A • R
• C • E •
23:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. please don't change the shakira singles. I added the references for germany and france so i request to you pls. pls. do not change the singles column Ashishvats23 ( talk), 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get this from? It's usually personal preference that determines this, an article-by-article issue. In fact, usually in an FLC, it will be requested that all sections are separate second tier headings, not third. I don't see where you're coming from by calling your preferred way "correct" and changing dozens of articles? k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 07:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:She Wolf music video by Shakira.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit 04:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dan6hell66: Sorry, I accidentally rolled back an edit you made to One Love (Bob Marley song) and the system charged you with an act of vandalism. This was a complete error on my part (I hit the wrong Wiki hotlink), so I reverted my own edit to the article and your contribution has been restored. Sorry about that. Doomsdayer520 ( talk) 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Coldplay single covers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Coldplay album covers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to
Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an
edit summary for your edits. 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.
A8
UDI
19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I suggest you to read our discussion about this topic Wikipedia_talk: Record_charts # Succession_boxes and there is no obligation to use Chart procession & succession according to Wikipedia:BADCHARTS#Chart_trajectories ( Thestreamer ( talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You recently made this edit, [1], to Some Hearts with the edit summary of "Filling in 2 references using Reflinks, yet some of the edit was not explained. Why would you change all of the align="center" 's to style="text-align:center;"? Aspects ( talk) 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There are two Brazilian Hot 100 charts. The one on WP:BADCHARTS is published by hot100brasil.com. The one on WP:GOODCHARTS is published by Billboard Brasil.— Kww( talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would stop undoing any relevant information added to the article ( Elissa), a development and growth of an article is extremely crucial therefore preventing an article from developing may defeat Wikipedia's purpose as an organisation. Thank you.
All sources I have provided are extremely reliable. I edited the article thoroughly to improve its contents as much of the information previously on the article was somewhat limited or too neutral. I do not appreciate my contributions being reverted or removed for invalid reasons. It would be greatly appreciated if you avoid reverting the article to the previous contributor's version. Thank you 86.152.168.194 ( talk) 19:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamerr ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to say thanks for reverting some trash talk on my talk page that was from a banned user that was very rude and upsetting to me. I really appreciate it. -- CrohnieGal Talk 23:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Dan. Looks like we're both pretty active on Huggle tonight. Just wanted to confirm you know what's going on with DIDWW and Kowlittens. Looks like they've been tagged for speedy, but the original authors want to keep editing them. I've noticed you've reverted some of those edits when they pull the speedy tag. Perhaps we can let them keep editing but just make sure the speedy tag gets restored (i.e. not revert and restore speedy when it gets pulled down). I'm sure you've got a million more edits than me and much more experience, but I've gotten bitten on a couple reverts to speedy pages recently and would hate for you to get bitten considering all of your good edits. Anyway, hope you're having a great evening. Oh, and try to leave some reverts for us little guys every once in awhile ;-). -- Gnowor T C 04:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Gnowor T C 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The edit to remove Windows Mobile from Smartphone looks to me to have been justified and in good faith and came with an edit summary. You should have at least added an edit summary for your reversion - it wasn't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering why you reverted my edits to Neos destinations. Another editor had to come along and re-edit them - I'm not a vandalist you know! Speed74 ( talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the blanking. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Please provide the specific (exact) reason for your revert. Everything I added had citations. You are required to give a precise reason for a revert, otherwise you are committing vandalism.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
![]() | This is Archive_2 covering 2009 and earlier. |
Hello. I just wanted to remind you of
Doing about 15 edits separately can really clutter up
watchlists and the article's
history. Please keep this in mind in the future. Thank you
• S • C
• A • R
• C • E •
23:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello. please don't change the shakira singles. I added the references for germany and france so i request to you pls. pls. do not change the singles column Ashishvats23 ( talk), 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get this from? It's usually personal preference that determines this, an article-by-article issue. In fact, usually in an FLC, it will be requested that all sections are separate second tier headings, not third. I don't see where you're coming from by calling your preferred way "correct" and changing dozens of articles? k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 07:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:She Wolf music video by Shakira.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit 04:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dan6hell66: Sorry, I accidentally rolled back an edit you made to One Love (Bob Marley song) and the system charged you with an act of vandalism. This was a complete error on my part (I hit the wrong Wiki hotlink), so I reverted my own edit to the article and your contribution has been restored. Sorry about that. Doomsdayer520 ( talk) 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Coldplay single covers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Coldplay album covers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to
Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an
edit summary for your edits. 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.
A8
UDI
19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I suggest you to read our discussion about this topic Wikipedia_talk: Record_charts # Succession_boxes and there is no obligation to use Chart procession & succession according to Wikipedia:BADCHARTS#Chart_trajectories ( Thestreamer ( talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You recently made this edit, [1], to Some Hearts with the edit summary of "Filling in 2 references using Reflinks, yet some of the edit was not explained. Why would you change all of the align="center" 's to style="text-align:center;"? Aspects ( talk) 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There are two Brazilian Hot 100 charts. The one on WP:BADCHARTS is published by hot100brasil.com. The one on WP:GOODCHARTS is published by Billboard Brasil.— Kww( talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would stop undoing any relevant information added to the article ( Elissa), a development and growth of an article is extremely crucial therefore preventing an article from developing may defeat Wikipedia's purpose as an organisation. Thank you.
All sources I have provided are extremely reliable. I edited the article thoroughly to improve its contents as much of the information previously on the article was somewhat limited or too neutral. I do not appreciate my contributions being reverted or removed for invalid reasons. It would be greatly appreciated if you avoid reverting the article to the previous contributor's version. Thank you 86.152.168.194 ( talk) 19:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamerr ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to say thanks for reverting some trash talk on my talk page that was from a banned user that was very rude and upsetting to me. I really appreciate it. -- CrohnieGal Talk 23:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Dan. Looks like we're both pretty active on Huggle tonight. Just wanted to confirm you know what's going on with DIDWW and Kowlittens. Looks like they've been tagged for speedy, but the original authors want to keep editing them. I've noticed you've reverted some of those edits when they pull the speedy tag. Perhaps we can let them keep editing but just make sure the speedy tag gets restored (i.e. not revert and restore speedy when it gets pulled down). I'm sure you've got a million more edits than me and much more experience, but I've gotten bitten on a couple reverts to speedy pages recently and would hate for you to get bitten considering all of your good edits. Anyway, hope you're having a great evening. Oh, and try to leave some reverts for us little guys every once in awhile ;-). -- Gnowor T C 04:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Gnowor T C 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The edit to remove Windows Mobile from Smartphone looks to me to have been justified and in good faith and came with an edit summary. You should have at least added an edit summary for your reversion - it wasn't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering why you reverted my edits to Neos destinations. Another editor had to come along and re-edit them - I'm not a vandalist you know! Speed74 ( talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the blanking. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 19:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Please provide the specific (exact) reason for your revert. Everything I added had citations. You are required to give a precise reason for a revert, otherwise you are committing vandalism.