Archive 1

Pretext

This is the first archive of User-talk:petiatil. Created on Saturday, October 1, 2011. Petiatil^»Talk 22:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of this Archive

The last addition to this discussion was on 18:39, September 26, 2011 and the first was on 21:16, June 3, 2005. Petiatil^»Talk 22:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

From WikiChecker

on 10/01/2011 18:38 EST

145 edits on article: User_talk:Petiatil

The 1st edition of the actual version: 1:16:43 4/6/2005 - The latest: 22:34:28 1/10/2011 (UTC)

Maintained 2,311 days

One edit par 15.9 days (382.5 hours) on average.
Number of editors: 59

Anonymous user edited 39 times

Edit count of the top 10% frequent users: 75 Petiatil^»Talk 22:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Electrophoresis Edit

I'd appreciate if you undo your reversion of my electrophoresis edit. I'm not about to get into an edit-war for something so minor, but I had added useful content to that subsection; the use of the word "Marker" is formal and generally understood, but when referring to DNA electrophoresis it is more common these days to use the word "Ladder". You will find that many products in this area are now using the word "ladder" rather than "marker". Consequently, I'm not sure why you thought it was useful to revert the edit, as you have effectively removed useful information to new readers. I'll leave it to you to decide whether to fix that mistake. I've got value to add.84.203.168.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Reverted 'unconstructive' change

Please confirm whether a change is 'unconstructive' on the actual page before reverting. My edit corrects a glaring paragraph error.125.238.21.12 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further: My edit purely corrects the paragraph error, no text changes (beyond grammar) were made. If you have a problem with the text, then that is what you should address, not reverting my corrections and returning the page to one with grammatical and paragraph errors. 125.238.21.12 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further 2: Again, I added no text, that section was there to begin with. If you think it's not 'notable', then you go delete it. Additionally, while I think it is great you want to keep vandalism out, I would advise you to check what the change actually accomplished before reverting it, as this was an instance where you were clearly in the wrong in reverting perfectly valid changes made in good faith, and now I had to wrestle with you to make the page better (not 'better' subjectively, in which case you might have some grounds, but 'better' objectively from any English-literate person's view). 125.238.21.12 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your recent reversion of vandalism--you're on your toes (BTW: nice beard in your photo--you wear it well).98.244.151.79 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

I am following up on a page that indicates that you proposed for deletion. It is the Online School for Girls, which is a non-profit school formed this summer by a consortium of four independent all-girls' school. It is the first online school dedicated to the secondary education of girls. We believe the information was accurate and striped of any marketing language. We are requesting that it be reinstated. Thank you.Jmamenta (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Jmamenta[reply]

hi

hi, u left a message on my talk page, i didnt get it. Wht the actual purpose was ? regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure, nevermind. petiatil ^»speak 11:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by revertinggood-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. decltype (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn Yoga

Hi Petiatil,

Dahn Yoga is a certifiable cult, and this article doesn't reflect the damage it has done. Please don't revert the changes I've made. Thanks much. 58.140.133.35

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing fourtildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Haha! petiatil ^»speak 09:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing fourtildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warning you issued me

I see you're new to rollback and Huggle. You issued me a warning here for makingthis vandalism reversion. Please be more careful when using Huggle-mistakes such as this one are fairly easy. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question and a pointer

Did you mean to make this edit? Looks like a mistake. Also, your signature doesn't contain a link to either your user page or talk page, so User:SineBot is auto-signing every one of your Huggle-issued warnings. If you don't want it to do that, you can follow the directions on its talk page to opt out of its grasp, though I understand some users frown on signatures like yours, so you may want to add a link instead. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that without any links, someone can't click on your signature to find who you are or send you a message. Instead, they have to go to the page history and find who left the message, or manually type in your name in search box. From WP:Signatures: Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive. Suffusion of Yellow(talk) 09:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troll or ?

Your purpose here is to protect the work of trolls? Because that's pretty much what you did by reverting an edit of mine that deleted the work of a vandal. Next time, check more carefully. 24.24.210.206 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was an edit conflict of some sort . petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_Software

Please retain my changes.

I have re-arranged the information on this article to properly reflect the references. This page is borderline spam because it has no references other than product announcements and not one independent article discussing the product. I moved the references to Company Announcements and Product Releases. I feel that this is where the links belong, not as references to justify the article to be noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by90.176.238.10 (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Paddy Usher

Hi, I saw you added a CSD tag to Paddy Usher under the A7 criterion. Don't you think "received airplay in top Irish stations" is a claim to notability? I'm not going to remove the tag because the article history seems a right mess, just figured I'd add my two bits in... Cheers! XXX antiuser ^eh? 13:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't sure either, but I figured if i put the tag on there, an admin would come along and make the right decision, plus I also tagged it with other templates as well, hopefully the original author will clean it up, among other things. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 15:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NY2000

Any chance you can do something about User:NY2000? He's been vandalising all night. 99.146.38.73(talk) 09:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

come on man

this is funny. no one really cares about that lady. let it slide this once.

nah i'm kidding i'll stop. but please answer this question for me.

do you get payment for patrolling wikipedia or just do it because you stalwartly believe in the free encyclopedia thing. i am genuinely curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by114.76.227.52 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About my edit on the Entertainment Software Rating Board article

Hi, Kyrios320 here. you have handed me a useless message as you should see ESRB's website as obvious proof that the organisation is still named ESRB till now. I hope you allow that revert to stay. Kyrios320 (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Chelsea Scores!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added byAshusheva (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my user page. I appreciate your watching my back. Cheers, mate! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I usually don't revert Talk pages, however, that revision was clearly vandalism. Anytime. Cheers. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petiatil, It appears you requested the deletion of the Online School for Girls that I uploaded as a board member. This is a non-profit online school tha was formed this summer by four independent girls' schools to provide the first online school for the secondary education for girls in the United States. We felt the information posted was accurate and striped of any marketing language. How do we go about having the page reinstated? Thank you. Jmamenta —Preceding unsigned comment added byJmamenta (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booza ( arabic gum ice cream )

I think the value "Dondurma" ( Turkish gum ice cream ) should unite with the value "Booza" (Arabic gum ice cream).burekas (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring removed WP:PROD templates

[1] Once a proposed deletion template has been removed, the deletion is considered contested and proposed deletion is no longer an option. Since a speedy deletion of this article has also been declined, the only remaining course of action is a deletion discussion. While it is preferred that the user removing the prod provide a rationale, it is not actually required. See WP:CONTESTED for details. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SONSOFDAY

Take a look again, especially at the history. I added the db-band tag and changed it when a claim of notability was added. You need to revert your bad edit and remove the warning from my talk page. 98.248.40.19 (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the idea that only admins can remove a db tag? Only the creator of the article is prohibited from doing so. In fact, the tag itself states "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice..." You obviously need to stop reverting pages if you don't understand the basics of the guidelines.98.248.40.19 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair

You need to better familiarize yourself with the MOS for bios - we don't use the full name every time.98.248.40.19 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about, can you be more specific? -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon researching, I've determined that I did not revert your edit because of MOS, however, the statement of it being the most successful company is biased. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colgate

I am editing the article now, so please wait till I finish and post explanations, thanks. I am going to undo you revert, so that you can see the finished product and go from there. Stwiso (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)I can not put this back together again following your reversion of my edits, so I will undo all the changes I made today, and come back to this article some day.[reply]

Re:Bahaha

Hey Petiatil. No worries, I saw that too and was wondering how it made basically an empty diff... weird. To be honest, I think the tagging and hangon system is completely opaque to new users, especially ones that haven't used wiki markup. I wish this were all a lot easier so that new users might understand what was going on rather than be presented with a big pink box of unintelligible text... it would be great to simplify this system. Eh well. Sheeana ^Talk 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

1

Yeah TW is usually more effective, but there are lots of glitches. -Regancy42 (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With TW. But maybe it's just me. -Regancy42 (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have rollback and use huggle? Also, i've never noticed glitches except some slow load times after applying templates or tags, which TW is great for, it lets us all use the same welcomes and warnings and the such. I'm using AppleWebKit aka Safari, which i think is the rendering engine for Chromium as well. Not sure what you're using, anything is better than IE i suppose. *Shrugs*. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have rollback. With TW, there's the issue of slow load time, and sometimes it doesn't register at all and so I have to go and revert again. Quite annoying actually. I'm using firefox. -Regancy42 (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found rollback isn't that hard to acquire, if you're actually into combatting vandalism. Which i enjoy, most days. I applied once and they denied me and i worked with twinkle reverting vandals and re applied maybe a week later, and i got it. It is up to you if that's something you want to do. It's a pretty good app not just for reverting, it has awesome tools for editing wikipedia too. It's like wiki on steroids, except it using IE to render the webpages and .NET framework, which f's up sometimes. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with the variety of counter-vandalism tools. Whats the difference between TW, Huggle and Rollback??-Regancy42 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2

Er, in a nutshell... Huggle you just hit the spacebar and go through revisions and look at the diff and find vandalism or other obviously stupid edits, i.e.: vandalism, foreign language additions, absurd unsourced content, spelling errors, punctuation errors, and if you cant revert you just make a manual edit. It also has the ability to auto-warn users and eventually after 4 warns we report them, but you need Rollback to use it. Twinkle is mainly just for addition of CSD, prod, AfD and other templates/tags to pages, as well as welcoming new users, etc. On my userpage it links to a tool called 'Lupins anti-vandal tool', offhand i dont know the url, however its very helpful along with Twinkle for users without rollback or who want to gain enough experience to obtain rollback. Rollback is essentially the 'undo' feature without showing the confirm page and whatnot. You click rollback and the edit is rolled back, no questions, it just says 'action confirmed' - its like super-undo, but you can only rollback the last or 'top' revision. If the last editor made multiple revisions you can rollback all of them with one click. However, since you don't have a confirm page, you have to be careful that you dont revert good faith edits. Which is where huggle and TW come in, because you can see the diff and make sure its not a good faith edit. Hope that helps clarify for you, cheers. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I thought that they all pretty much served the same purpose. I think TW is good enough, as long as it actually functions properly... Thanks for clearing it up though. -Regancy42 (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 09:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain about the section blanking of Fame Factory

I am sure that Fame Factory is a fictional reality show because Ronan Keating and Ben Shepherd were in their early years with Boyzone and T4 respectively. Also I think Ant & Dec could not have hosted Fame Factory UK. In addition, the BBC and Sky One are not official broadcasters of Ireland and Kosovo respectively. Research this yourself. You'll soon find out this is a fictional reality show.

Umm...

Hi, I only have just received a message from you on my talk page stating that I had removed content from Git (British Slang). I think there has been some sort of mistake. I did not do anything like this and would never remove content from a page without arguing it on the talk page first. I am actually User:Solar Dragon, not logged in, and would never vandalize a wiki as I know how bad it is to have a wiki vandalized (I am a member of many Wikia wikis and am an admin on a lot of them). Just to tell you that it was not me. I know that IPs change so I may have got a vandal's IP so could I remove that comment left by you as I do not like any one to look at that and think anything less of me. Thanks, 92.24.23.91 (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

idk, as im not administrator, im just a rollbacker/ petiatil ^{»User»Contribs} 10:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes Valid

The changes, which you marked invalid at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_in_Pakistan?diff=364806399 are actually valid. BTW, I am not the one who posted these changes (this is a shared IP), but still, it's best that you know.221.120.250.75 (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Demonwars

I know i'm a noob and all, yet aint the wiki suppose to have this sorted better. If there was a section called Plot and I read that I would be full aware spoilers could be available. On this page I can't read any section without the book or series being fully spoiled.

All book descriptions basicly tell you the ending and ruing said book. All twists everything are gived out. I know there are no "Warnings" anymore, yet again aint spoilers suppose to fall under plots or some other section as for this series I looked it up too see how many books etc.. and get an idea what I was getting into.. so Read read.. Boom Series ruined.

Thanks for any feedback or clarification if this is the way it is, then the wikipedia is useless for book research. 198.103.221.51 (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 0dcf211e9d7b5cb89e95d180859df865

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Orphaned non-free image File:Aim7 3 5 5 Beta 3.png

⚠

Thanks for uploadingFile:Aim7 3 5 5 Beta 3.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of VGASAVE

An article that you have been involved in editing,VGASAVE, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VGASAVE (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning (hoax)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to AB III. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobertoq (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats funny, copy and paste can be hard. Nice signature as well. petiatil ^{»User»Contribs} 11:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism

Thanks for your help sorting out these silly Queensland vandals. A useful technique when reverting multiple vandalism like that is, rather than just editing out the vandalism, to find a good version in the history and revert to that with an edit summary like "RVV to version by So-and-so at 16:14 24 Aug." That makes it easier for anyone coming after to see what has happened. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Jesson

//www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1307163/Corrie-star-Bill-Roache-finds-love-TV-ts

Read this Daily Mail story.

Then explain why you have deleted my edit TWICE which means I am on level three warning.

If you read the article you would see the glaring inaccuracy that is listed ats fact, ie Emma Jesson is dating William Roche who is 41 years her junior, as Emma Jesson is 41, does that make Willaim roache a sperm????

Why don'y you guys actually read before you delete??????? —Precedingunsigned comment added by 87.198.199.81 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Review

I left a brief review at WP:editor review/Petiatil
--E♴ (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha- You must not have all the fonts installed. Since my username is e2eamon, the "box" is actually a recycling symbol with a 2 inside of it. (See the pic) It's the symbol for High density polyethylene. I wonder how many people can't see it. It works fine on my computer...--E♴ (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Dude, I appreciate you working against vandalism, but read my contribution and check the sources. They did not sustain the claims being made. Now they do. (aka ocanter) 128.114.184.97 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Leach page

Hi,

My name is Landry Leach. I am Taylor Leach's brother. He was talking to me about wikipedia, and for fun, I wanted to create a funny page for him so he could read it. I created the page, he read it and thought it was funny. Now, I just want to delete the page, because it just based on our childhood memories and some humorous fake remarks. However, I keep receiving messages ( one from you) when I try to get rid of it. I haven't tried to do anything wrong, since I thought the only people going to see the page would be my brother and I. How can I delete this page and avoid having other people stopping me from doing it? Sorry for the inconvenience. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Landry713 (talk •contribs) 21:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it has already been deleted.

P.S I have no idea what I'm doing.

Landry713 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert?

I made a edit that you reverted back. Do you not believe in the growth of Wikipedia? You seem to fight vandals, but all you do is revert everything you come around. Do you even get paid for this? —Precedingunsigned comment added by 12.229.185.132 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why were my 9/13/10 Woodstock edits deleted?

I am a 56 year-old music historian who obviously was alive at the time of Woodstock. (I was 15, and lived about three hours away, near Syracuse. With no drivers license, car, or money, I was unable to go to Woodstock, but I certainly had great interest in it, and have spoken with Michael Lang.) I've been chronicling and documenting the ever-passing music parade since 1960, when I was 6. And the music's inter-twining with the times in which it was made and heard. With all due respect, your photo reveals you to be no older than 35, born 6 years AFTER Woodstock, perhaps- so why would you delete well-written, verifiable information from someone who actually lived the event? It'd be like me disregarding the observations of World War II veterans.

I have a great, clear memory of news and cultural events (A benefit from never have taken drugs!) Over the decades I researched Woodstock, particularly the music, and the various contexts to which it is found. For instance, in August 1969, Led Zeppelin was largely unknown. But they were on a roll as word-of-mouth from their live shows later in 1969 (and the release of Led Zeppelin II in Nov 1969) put them on a swift, upward trajectory. So, at the time of Woodstock, they were "just another band" to many in an American audience, as Peter Grant mused. I made reference to this, but it was deleted. Why? This is important because when people see that Led Zeppelin was invited to Woodstock, they will likely think of the superstar Led Zeppelin that was asked, not the up-and-coming, superstar-to-be Led Zeppelin. I know what I am talking about: I lived it!!

And the Rhino box set. Why was my bit about the chronological list of performers deleted? This is a biggie. For 40 years there was no true, accurate list of who performed when and what. You'd think that with such a well-documented event like Woodstock this would be a no-brainer. But clear brains were not in abundance at Woodstock, with the drugs, alcohol, chaos, and usual beauracratic snafus conspiring to muddy people's recollections. Andy Zax and Brian Kehew put an end to this with their carefully compiled list. Finally, After 40 years!!! This is BIG - Yet, this was deleted. Why? —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 216.70.166.173 (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

I removed the edits because you did not provide an informative edit summary, there is nothing wrong necessarily with removing content, however, you must provide an edit summary as it is stated in the warnings I issued. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. SeeManual of Style and Wikipedia:Verifiability.Petiatil^»Talk 20:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review archived

Hello, I have archived your editor review, which may be found here. You may want to review it to see if there were any additional new comments. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 04:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Polk county logo seal.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Polk county logo seal.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include afair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft(talk) 20:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Polk county logo seal.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploadingFile:Polk county logo seal.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About MALIK BIHAR

My edit is completely justified as Bihar is in India and there are more Hindu Maliks than Muslim maliks. I just want to remind the Muslim Maliks that our homeland is this state. Also Maliks don't mean kings only. Can you give me any proofs about that? Islamisgr88 (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beehive and EJB2

Thanks for pointing out that I neglected to add references for the fact that Beehive only helped with EJB2 (which is now widely acknowledged to be legacy, I added several references for that fact) and that according to important contributors to the Beehive project (e.g. Andrew McCulloch) Beehive controls indeed can do nothing to simplify working with EJB3 beans, which had in fact "essentially standardized much of the value-add" that Beehive provided back then.

Arjant (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques de Billy

Oops...you beat me to vandalism and I reverted you by accident! Trout me if needed. :) WikiPuppies! (bark) 23:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Winhelp32.png

⚠

~~Thanks for uploading~~File:Winhelp32.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

~~Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you~~. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove external link

Hi, I am wondering why the official Twitter page of news anchor Rosemary Church is considered "spam" when many other news anchors, reporters or high profile media figures have their official Twitter or Facebook pages listed without a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.232.130(talk) 11:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your unexpected deletion of properly sourced materials...

I am new here, but my community backed me up once before when I attempted to make edits that contributed and were constructive -- I see you revered my edits on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition_in_the_United_States page -- that page is currently on the Watchlist of a lot of my peeps who are keeping an eye on it for vandalism -- it would appear you have vandalised that page, but if you have a case for the removal of the new section (in which the sources ARE cited), please visit with me on the 'Talk' page of that article, and we can discuss it in the community.71.101.33.24 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC) -- Hmm. interesting -- a Lakeland native also -- if your concern is serious, I can buy you coffee and discuss the matter in person - and hear your side of the story. In forum however, I prefer to remain anonymous so I do not draw credit to myself for being a Good Samaritan.71.101.33.24 (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

OK, I saw your note on your front page -- I think the new section was appropriate to split up the 'Economic' and 'Social' Sections --since I did cite five sources to verify my claims, I don't see your rationale. I am all ears.71.101.33.24 (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I reverted your changes, Petiatil, thinking that your Application, Huggle, may have made a mistake -- but if you meant to change that, then I'll let you re-revert & get in the last word -- if you wish to speak with me in person about this, I plan to be at the 11:00 AM Sunday School group at the First Baptist Church at the Mall near Lake Parker, Ingraham, the Skate rink, and Jimbo's pit BBQ here in your home town today. For reasons of anonymity, though I wish to not post my identity online. Thank you for your feeback on your reasoning here. Have a nice and blessed day.71.101.33.24 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "reply to your unexpected deletion of properly sourced materials..."

Edits queue up rather quickly in huggle and additionally; sometimes when I'm reviewing a recent edit to an article, someone else comes along and reverts it right as im also reverting, so unfortunately it can cause quite a mess. Generally, when things like this happen i let the original editor (whom i have reverted) explain and typically (90%) let them go ahead. I'm not one to make up rules and whatnot. I imagine there was something that caught my attention so that i would revert... Typically its not providing an edit summary. IE: Why did you do ___?. Also, if there is a dispute or im unsure about something i'll skip it and let someone else weight their opinion as to revert it or not. Apologies. Keep on editing! -Ian -- Petiatil^»Talk 13:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to cout out to church (and get some free food!), but I saw your comment -- it's all good -- anyhow, if you're local, you and anyone else is invited. I will bring some snacks in fact this time to ensure there IS something -- OK, gotta go -thx 4 the reply.71.101.33.24 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- other issues were raised & disputed

I'm back from my church's Sunday School singles group now, but I need your help again: In the talk and article sections of that page, another editor, 72Dino, claimed that some external links were inappropriate. Here:Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States#Proposed_New_Section I disagreed, as they are related to the subject at hand, but perhaps they were inappropriate for THAT article (i.e., maybe he was right & I was wrong). However, since these web pages / web sites WERE related to the subject, I am sure they belong on SOME Wikipedia article or another --even if not that one. I'm just not sure which article or where. (AND, by the way, looking at the registration dates & such for those pages/sites, ALL of the 'External Links' appear to be 'permanent' pages, around for a long time.) Therefore, I ask for your input here -- seeking community feedback, consensus, etc. Thank you.71.100.187.222 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of non-free image File:Winhelp32.png on WinHelp

The non-free image File:Winhelp32.png was recently restored to WinHelp by you after it have been removed for failure of our non-free content criteria policy, specifically item #10c which requires a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". The image still fails the 10c policy requirement and has been removed from the article again. Please do not restore this image to that article again without complying with the requirements of that policy. For more information on how to write an appropriate non-free use rationale, please consult Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. If you have questions about this, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is orphaned as well as missing a non-free rationale, meaning the image will be deleted in seven days. Thank you,--Hammersoft (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Beel

Rump cabinet is the precise description for the Cabinet Beel II. I created the article and changed interim cabinet to rump cabinet, which I view is more descriptive and has an explanatory article behind the link. I noticed I edited whilst logged out so apologies for that. I'm changing it back, hope you don't mind. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake, feel free to undo my edit and remove any warning. Petiatil^»Talk 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping a watchful eye. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Petiatil/monobook.js

User:Petiatil/monobook.js, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Petiatil/monobook.js and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Petiatil/monobook.js during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Petiatil^»Talk 22:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany discussion added with no headline/subject

Addition from talk on 07:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give me some guidance as to what to do so that when one searches for that username in google, (s)he is not sent to these requests for adminship. The requests have ended up on a hundred sites. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 76.102.194.122(talk) 07:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]