User talk:Apparition11/Archives/2009

This page 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.

Hey, do you have any template pages that shows "what to type" and "what it makes" like here? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Template_messages - Eugene Krabs (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(Cross posted from User Talk:Eugene Krabs) I think that you're looking for this: Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. You can find all of the templates arranged into categories here: Wikipedia:Template messages. If this isn't exactly what you're looking for, let me know. Hope this helps! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. I'm not understanding what the speedy deletion is for, so I placed a hang-on tag, but I need help. I'm not familiar with some of these templates. Can you help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Walmsley - Eugene Krabs (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been tagged as WP:CSD#A7, basically saying that it does not assert notability. Most articles are deleted due to a lack of reliable, third party sources, which is likely to be the case here. Also, it shows that it's a copyright violation. We cannot accept copyrighted material from other places. You can use other sites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Most likely, in order for the page to survive, you'll need to find third party sources make sure that it's not a copyvio. You may also want to take a look at WP:FIRST for tips on writing your first article. Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 19:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I looked, but I couldn't find the "User talk messages" templates (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Template_messages/User_talk). - Eugene Krabs (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are the welcome templates: Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table, and here are the warnings: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. I keep these links on my user page for quick reference :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 20:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hey, how do I get to my sandbox? I want to test 'em out. :) - Eugene Krabs (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. To make your sandbox, you can just click on this link User:Eugene Krabs/Sandbox and start testing :) Have fun! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I just decided to add "Abouts" of Chris and Jake to the Syncsta page without pictures. Can you delete this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jake_Walmsley.jpg - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(Cross posted from User talk:Eugene Krabs) I'm sorry, I can't delete pages or images, only admins can. You can put a {{db-self}} template on it, which marks it for speedy deletion by request of the creator. Hope this helps. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You sure look like an administrator. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

:) Thanks, but nope, I'm just a regular editor. I just noticed that you had already put it up for speedy, so I just told you something that you already knew. Sorry about that, I should've looked first ;) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Team Blackout - Lights Out (Latchkey/Koch), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Team Blackout - Lights Out (Latchkey/Koch) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Team Blackout - Lights Out (Latchkey/Koch), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries Mr. Bot, just an article I moved to comply with our naming conventions. Thanks for the notification. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

helloAt3whee (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 01:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a very nice attraction at all. But I see you've been doing a good job of keeping track so far. Keep it up. ~ Troy (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

lol Yeah it's been fun. I was thankful that you finally let me get a couple of reverts in, I was getting tired of seeing "Cannot rollback, page was edited by Troy" ;) I'd thought about requesting semi-protection, but I knew that the Superbowl would be over soon enough and it'd all die down. Great job tonight! Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(Cross posted from User talk:Rabmaster) Hello. I just reverted an edit you made to Paddy Power where you removed the official link. Judging by a comment you made in the above section, it seems that you feel that if your link shouldn't be added, then the official site shouldn't be included; however, per WP:ELYES, the official website of the subject of the article should be included. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really got to grips with editing and have got a lot of messages about reverting stuff - the problem being that I made a number of similar edits in one go which are all being construed as spam. I genuinely thought that I was making a useful addition that folks interested in a retailer / company would be happy to discover in that it uncovers beneficial information in a non commercial manner! --Rabmaster (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. Wikipedia is the target of a lot of WP:SPAM, so, most of the time, when links to the same website are added to a lot of different articles, they will usually all reverted as spam, regardless of if this was the actual intention. You might want to take a look at WP:EL to see what links should generally be added, and if you need any help with links or anything else, you can ask on the article's talk page or you can always ask me (I may not always be the most help, but I never care to try) :) Happy editing! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have been reading through all the spam stuff - I hadn't realised that non-commercial sites are considered spam and also its fairly obvious that all the edits I made look like the the actions of a spammer. Unfortunately, the problem here would appear to lie with the search engines which bring up Wikipedia pages when those from other websites would appear more apt. Thanks for helping to clarify - I appreciate that Wikipedia is not a web directory and won't be adding any more links in the near future. Bit of a wasted hour or two on my part. --Rabmaster (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry that you lost a lot of time. I know how it feels to do a lot of work, and then have it all torn down in minutes... It can be extremely frustrating, but, unfortunately, that is the bad part that comes with editing here. Don't worry about the warnings above, I think you've demonstrated that your intention wasn't to spam, so you don't have to worry about being blocked or anything. Everyone makes mistakes :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 23:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

you may not agree with my theory but most achological evidence buffed up. unless there are more evidence or this will not consider as true information. as an admin you most beware of some nationalist use wiki for political purpose. their information seemly no convinse to the public.

sorry for the inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanrich (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, what? I don't think that I have reverted you or am involved in anyway. I'm not an admin btw. However, I'll try to throw in my 2 cents. Just glancing at your contributions, it seems that you have been edit warring to get your theory included. Instead of doing this, you should use the bold, revert, discuss cycle. After you are bold and contribute something, if you are reverted, then instead of re-adding it, instead, discuss it. You should be aware though, that Wikipedia does not accept original research. If the theory is one that you came up with, odds are that it won't be accepted. In order to have a chance at inclusion, it needs to be backed up by reliable sources. If it is a theory not accepted much in the mainstream, then WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV might also be an issue. I'm not familiar with the issue you're talking about, and all of this may or may not apply, but I hope it helps a little. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 04:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Where can all the {{db}} templates be found?

I don't know them all, so...

I only know a few:

{{db-nonsense}}, {{db-vandalism}}, {{db-people}}, etc. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They can be found at WP:CSD, but please be very careful about where you place them. I would honestly advise against speedy tagging for a while. If you're interested in it, you would probably be best served to just watch some new page patrollers for a while before you jump in. If you do start tagging anyway, make sure that the article fits the criteria perfectly. Given your recent history, if you go through wrongly tagging articles for speedy deletion, you could end up being blocked for a long period of time. Note:I'm not threatening or trying to intimidate, I'm sincerely worried that if you start with this, that it may not end well Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Maybe you could tell me what each one belongs to then? =D - Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can try. The link above gives the basic criteria and brief examples for most of them. The one that is probably used most often is {{db-A7}}. It should be used on articles that do not assert notability. Such as, if I created an article that consisted of "John Doe is a Wikipedia editor. He is cool.", then that would not assert any notability. However, if I added something such as "He has authored three best selling books.", then I have asserted notability and CSD A7 no longer applies. Remember, deletion is only for when there is no hope for an article. It should be the final step. If you have any questions about specific CSD criteria, let me know and I'll do my best to help out. I would try to list them all, but it'd take a pretty good while :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way I can archive my talk page? You know how I organize it, right? Well, I'd like to archive each month as it passes and a new month starts so my talk page doesn't get too cluttered.

Example: March is drawing near, so when March comes, I'd like to archive February.

I joined in December 2008, so I want to archive that and January. You know, uh, like how the robot does it here, but it's every 24 hours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admins_noticeboard - Eugene Krabs (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The instructions for archiving are at WP:ARCHIVE. I use the cut and paste procedure. If you were to use this, you could make a subpage for each month, such as User talk:Eugene Krabs/January 2009 and just cut and paste there.

For automatic archiving, I can't be too much help as I've never used it, but the instructions can be found at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo or User:ClueBot_III#How to archive your page. Using Mizabot, it appears that you could use code like this to have it archive after 30 days to User talk:Eugene Krabs/Month/Year:

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Eugene Krabs/%(monthname)s/%(year)d
}}

Hope this helps. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand why my edits of the Lipton page were rejected. Sorry for violating the policy re: neutral point of view. But to be honest, how "neutral" is Unilever's advertising on wikipedia? This company has slashed 162,000 jobs in 8 years. But it's using wikipedia to promote its branded products.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipton.casualty (talk • contribs) 10:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I agree that it does read a lot like an advertisement (and has been tagged as such since August 2008). It does need work, but the way to fix it isn't by going from one extreme to the other. When I get some time, I'll try to go in and see if I can improve it a little, but I'll have to do a lot of research, I don't know a whole lot about the company. If you edit the article any more, make sure that what you include is backed up by third party, reliable sources, and that it makes it more neutral. Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 10:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you customize your signature? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You go to 'my preferences' at the top, there, beside signature, use the code you want as your sig. For example, mine is <span style="font-family:Cooper Black;color:#000;font-size:14px">[[User:Apparition11|Apparition¹¹]] ^{[[User Talk:Apparition11|Complaints]]}/<small>[[Special:Contributions/Apparition11|Mistakes]]</small></span>. Check the 'Raw signature' box, and you should be set! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that the Unilever article on wikipedia has a section CRITICISMS under which there's a sub-head Trade Unions. Could a similar section be added to the Lipton article?

Sources for material in this section would be: http://www.iuf.org/casualtea/ http://www.unileverwatch.org/ http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=5622&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1 Lipton.casualty (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Do you had any independent news sources of the controversy? Obviously the IUF are an involved party, so what would really be needed are third party sources who are an arm's length from the controversy. If it's covered by uninvolved and reliable sources, then most likely, it could be integrated into the article. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 18:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Where can I find those templates? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 04:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's helpful, but I was talking about the templates they use on your talk page.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eugene_Krabs/January_2009#Speedy_deletion_of_Jake_Walmsley for an example. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mean to notify the creator? It's actually located on the speedy deletion template itself. After you post it, there will be part of it that says "Please consider placing the template:" and just copy and paste what follows. You can see an example at Buddhism in Hungary at the moment, or you can look here for the pages currently marked to see more (since that will probably be deleted soon). Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, it'd probably be easier to look at a template instead of an article that will likely be deleted soon., for example Template:Db-web. The last few lines of it is where you can find the notification template. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 19:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's saying it's March already, but it's still February 28th. It's 6:53pm. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably because of the time difference. For example, it's 11:49 PM where I am (Central Standard Time), but by Wikipedia's server time, it is 5:49. It doesn't make much of a difference to me, except on the last day of the month, but so I can make sure that I know what's going on, I keep a clock of the server time in the upper right hand corner. If you need to do this but don't know how, you can go to 'my preferences', then click on 'date and time', then click on the second option under 'User interface gadgets', which is ' Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC. (also provides a link to purge the current page)'. Hope this helps. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 05:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Our timezone is PT. What timezone is UTC?
By the way, how do you automatically insert a "Reverted edits by..." summary in an edit summary? I have to do it manually. I'll show you what I type, but how do I type it so it shows the code instead of just the user's name or something? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

UTC is the server time, which is the time all signatures will post. Hostories and whatnot will show you the time zone that you have filled in under preferences. We automatically insert the "Reverted edits by..." edit summary by using WP:Rollback. It is a tool that is given to administrators and also to users who have demonstrated that they can be trusted with the tool. It is only to be used when reverting vandalism and clearly unproductive edits. You can request rollback at WP:PERM. If you're interested in rollback, I'd advise waiting a couple of weeks and establish that you can tell the difference between vandalism and bad (but good-faith) edits, since this has been an issue as of late. Another alternative is using WP:TWINKLE. It is a semi-automated tool which works a lot like rollback. You could install that now, just be careful about what you revert using it. If it's not obvious vandalism, then explain why you reverted. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I type. It probably won't show the code, but you can probably fix it so it does show the coding. I'll use us for the example. Here's what I type:
Reverted edits by Eugene Krabs (talk); changed back to last version by Apparition11 - Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, gotcha. I wouldn't worry about typing it all out if I were you. Before I had rollback, I just used the automatic undo edit summary, or, if I were reverting more than one edit, type rvv (which means revert vandalism). See, I have rollback, and when I go into the history of a page and look at the top edit, beside undo, it has a link that says rollback. When I click on that, it reverts all the top edits made by that user/IP and automatically leaves that edit summary. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here! The <nowiki> thing will work. Here is what I have for my revert summary:
Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/Eugene Krabs|Eugene Krabs]] ([[User talk:Eugene Krabs|talk]]); changed back to last version by [[User:Apparition11|Apparition11]]
An actual non-example summary can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco&action=history - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) It's not that important to leave that exact edit summary. If it's a vandalism revert, just leaving the standard undo summary is sufficient. If it's something else, just leave a note at the end of it telling why and that is all you really have to do. While it's alright to leave that summary, it's probably more effort than it's worth. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I only have to erase the link and undid text stuff and add "Reverted edits by..."; changed back to last version by [[User:Example|Example]] because everything else is already there, so it's actually not that much. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. If you want to do that, then I don't see that there's anything wrong with it, just not necessary. The main thing with edit summaries are that others should be able to tell what you did and why. If it doesn't really specify, then it should be a vandalism revert. "Undid edit by...", "Reverted edits by...", or rvv all really mean the same thing. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I didn't see a rollback option when I looked at the history of this page, but I did find the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Automatic_edit_summaries - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to be given WP:ROLLBACK before you can use it, which I was trying to explain in my second post, but, I'll admit, I've had a few drinks tonight, so I may not have explained as clearly as I could've :) An admin has to give you rollback before you can use it. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to add the rollback summary I have to the list so it automatically adds? From what I've seen, there are several different summaries used by administrators. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that would be an issue that you'd have to take to MediaWiki. I'm sure that a script could also be written to do it, but I honestly don't see what we'd really gain by it. Nearly anyone you see use that edit summary is just leaving it because they are using rollback. That is just the automatic edit summary when rollback is used. There isn't really a need to leave that summary at any other time. The standard undo edit summary essentially means the same thing. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 08:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to become an administrator. =D - Eugene Krabs (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

{Outdent) Yeah, a lot of people do, I personally could care less about becoming one. Really, adminship is no big deal. Admins are just editors with more tools. They really don't out-rank anyone else. If I get into a dispute with an admin, then it comes down to WP:CONSENSUS and who is more in-line with policy. While what they say often does carry a lot of weight, this is more due to the fact that they are established and trusted editors who are knowledgeable in policies rather than the fact that they are admins. If you really want to become an admin, the first step you would probably need to take is to become very familiar with policies and guidelines and assert that into building the encyclopedia. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 08:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See this for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eugene_Krabs#Fair_use_rationale_for_File:Arc_the_Lad.3B_Twilight_of_the_Spirits_English_cover.jpg - Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't be of much help. WP:FU, I believe, is the relevant guideline here. From my couple of minutes of trying to get caught up with the guidelines, I believe that the problem is that you haven't explained the rationale behind using the non-free image. For the rationale part, you can see WP:FUG. I think that I'm fairly knowledgeable in most of the policies and guidelines, but this is the one area where I'm totally clueless. If those pages don't tell you what you need, you should probably find someone with more experience in this area. Sorry that I can't be of any real help. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 08:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the old post I made here. Can I get the one you used again for an example? Also, how do I add color? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The orginal post at User talk:Apparition11#Another question. =D. That's where the instructions and my previous example is. I'll give another so not to repeat. If you set your signature as

<font color="#333366" face="cursive">[[User:Eugene Krabs|Eugene Krabs]] [[User talk:Eugene Krabs|(Messages)]]</font>

then you'd get Eugene Krabs (Messages). Just change the font color and face to whatever you like. If you need them, you can find a list of colors here and some faces here. You might also want to glance at WP:SIG to see the guidelines for signature, the main thing being that it is easily readable and easy on the eyes. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 05:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I want mine in the same format as yours... except in red and Mr. Krabs Give me money (Talk) My wallet (contributions) Oh, and feel free to suggest a text format that could go in my signature that would match my username. Eugene Krabs is a character from Spongebob Squarepants. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Look > - [[User:Eugene Krabs|Mr. Krabs¹¹]] ^{[[User Talk:Eugene Krabs|Give me money!]]}/[[Special:Contributions/Eugene Krabs|My wallet]] (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you check the box beside "Raw Signature" in the preferences? Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(Update) I added your sig to my preferences and used preview and it looked right, so the code is OK, so it should be that the Raw Signature is currently unchecked. Once you check it, it should work alright. I'd love to be able to help with suggestions, but my creativity is lacking to say the least :) I pretty much picked a random font that was readable and a blue color (I think, I'm actually color blind). Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Krabs^{11 Give me money!}/color;#FF0000My wallet 06:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC) It's better, but I don't the 11 there and I want everything in red. - Mr. Krabs^{11 Give me money!}/color;#FF0000My wallet 06:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Give me a minute. I have to admit, I'm not the best at sigs, but I should figure out how you want it. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I finally got something (and realized that my sig didn't work like I thought it did). This won't be the font, but I couldn't figure out how to keep it and stay in the limit. This:

[[User:Eugene Krabs|<font color="#FF0000">Mr. Krabs</font>]] ^{[[User Talk:Eugene Krabs|<font color="#FF0000">Give me money!</font>]]}/<small>[[Special:Contributions/Eugene Krabs|<font color="#FF0000">My wallet</font>]]</small>

will yield Mr. Krabs ^{Give me money!}/My wallet Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll note that I just removed some leftover useless code from the above example. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 08:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello.... someone told me that Wittenberg had 2100 students.

But no way to add their dining services?

and they got a radio station?

and they got a Observatory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejejeje567 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(See User talk:Jejejeje567 for the rest.) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 10:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Johnathan87 (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Regarding the game room in the student center this is very unique to students in residence life. Many campuses do not offer a game room. So, this is something very unique about the campus. I've included all that the Game room has to offer.

Secondly, regarding the Bed and Breakfast, this is something very unique because many campus' don't have this. As it is true it's an alumni that opened it, Wittenberg has a common relationship with the bread and breakfast for alumni visiting campus and perspective students traveling from across the country to visit. And that is very unique. Currently since the bread and breakfast is undergoing their website, we can only post where to find their phone number. This is a place people can check if they want to verify this.

Thanks, but please do not remove this information as it is very unique.

Can you provide a third party source to indicate that this is notable? All the sources that I have seen you use seem to be straight from the university's sites. The bed and breakfast's website is not an appropriate source. You need independant sources. You need third party sources that are an arm's length away. The problem is not to verify. The problem is notability. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(Seanusa90 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Wittenberg University is unique for their game room. It explains what is in their game room. Most universities and colleges don't have things like this. And it's notable since outside students from campus come to the university to hang out for this reason.

thanks and I'm re-posting it. Please do not delete it.

Reply to my comments on the article's talk page please. I have no desire to communicate about this on User talk pages. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 19:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wei.

I wan to become a administrator for wikipedia. How? Can tell me what can I do? And wat a admin can do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.60.49 (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well first, stop vandalizing. Then sign up, make around 5,000-10,000 constructive edits. Get a good grasp of Wikipedia policy and demonstrate your knowledge of it. If you do all of that, then come back and ask me, and I'll let you know the rest. Among some other things, the main thing admins can do are block users, protect articles, and delete articles. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ok I stop valdalizing liao. Den u think i god ah can do 10000 constructive edites at one time.??? i got oni 1 brain and 10 fingers! U tell me what a admin can do first and what good thing a admin has?

and wat s constructive edit? who judge?nobody is perfect in ddis world so who will judge if is construktif or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.60.49 (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I went back and added what admins can do in my post above. Your chance of becoming an admin is nil if you haven't been here around 6 months, but most likely you would have to wait around a year. You can only make one edit at one time. A constructive edit would be an edit that helps, not damages. Mistakes do happen, as long as it is a good faith mistake, that's fine, but if they were obvious attempts to damage, then that is not. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I ask u who judge, u didn answer my question.i told u nobody is perfect so who says the edit is constructive anot ahr?

den wat is a barnstar? is good or bad? can i haf barnsrtar? or can i give branstar to ppl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.60.49 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody judges, it's common sense. It is easy to see if edits are good or bad. If an edit helps, it's constructive. If it doesn't, it's not. If it was meant to help but didn't, it's simply a mistake. See WP:BARNSTAR for what barnstars are. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 09:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

U had passed the test for WP:GOODFAITH administrator. We shall contact you soon. PromCode : 7680JHKJH9087AK2K7K4BNVJAJASHHBCF8ALAJD Kindly preserve this code in your talkpage for further details. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.60.49 (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Right... I'll be watching for that. I'm not an admin though, so I guess that disqualifies me. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 10:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

On the grounds on which you deleted my addition, MOST of the information in the article on B. splendens could be deleted; the majority of the article is 'unsourced opinion. You may as well go in and delete everything that isn't referenced if you delete that. What I added is important for people to know. Is it YOUR Wikipedia or does it belong to all of us? What I wrote is true according to many websites in addition to my own experience. If as you say you're not an admin, let it stand. 209.225.116.10 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is not the place to be placing your opinions. Please see WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS. If it is true according to many websites, then simply source it to one that is a reliable source, and you'll get no argument from me. If you need help formatting the source, I would be glad to help. However, our own experiences are not proper sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a viable argument either. A lot more probably should be deleted, but that doesn't mean that we should just keep on adding more and more unsourced info. Finally, no, Wikipedia is not MINE. Anyone can edit it, but that doesn't mean that anyone can insert anything and it can stay. What stays comes down to what is more in line with our WP:Policies and WP:Consensus. Also, please look at the references section of the version you just reverted to. You did happen to see that you kind of screwed one up, didn't you? Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 20:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not. I personally touched no references so it's not really my doing. Again, NOT an opinion; witnessed fact. If I have to actually search the multiple sites I've read on the subject to back me up with a specific mention because this is just too unacceptable, then whatever. And no, I don't know how to format a source, because I'm limited to an hour on the computer on the rare days when I can get to the library and simply don't have time to learn to do everything. Wish I could play on the Internet all night but I haven't the luxury. 209.225.116.10 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And I stand by my contention that this is important for people to know and it is not "unencyclopedic". It's my contention that if anything on Wikipedia is "unencyclopedic", it's the multitude of articles on individual episodes of TV series, individual comic-book stories and characters, and soap-opera characters. It's those that make Wikipedia seem a joke, not my addition to the B. splendens article. 209.225.116.10 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, just tell me the best link you got, and, as I said, I will help you insert it. Without a source, it doesn't belong, period. Please see WP:PROVEIT. The burden is on you to source it. I'm on break at the moment and will not remove it. Just give me a website in the next couple of days, and I'll source it when I come back. Of course, otherwise, it should be and will be removed. Claiming that local pet stores are ignorant or indifferent is not something that we can go around claiming without sources to back it up. Besides looking like original research, it also is not a neutral point of view. I can give you a lot of reasons that it doesn't belong, but I will not argue if one good source is given (of course discussion forums, blogs, and whatnot are not good sources). So please, provide one soon, and I'm happy. If you don't provide one and I end up removing it, then please do not reinsert it without a good source. Again, it is up to you to bring a source.

Also, yes you did mess with the references, whether you meant to or not. This is the version that you reverted back to. If you'll look at the first reference, you'll see that you inserted your blurb into one of the references as well as into the body. You didn't this time, so no worries. I just had a feeling that you'd simply undo again and do it over again. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You of course mean "reverted", not "reverted back". Liability for slander can't be a concern when I don't name names. I personally have complained to the HQs of Petco and Wal-Mart regarding the conditions in which they keep bettas, so obviously I could name names if I want and am unafraid to. Again, I had no intent to tamper with the references; I don't delete other people's content if it's coherent. Over the weekend I thought of a question to ask you; Do you even have bettas? I do. I would be very curious why this article is so important to you if you're not involved with bettas. See, the sad thing is that you say, "Of course, discussion forums are not good sources." Why not?! You just eliminated any sources I can refer to, as any that I can recall are discussion forums. The best sources of info on bettas ARE discussion forums of one sort or another. Why should we not consider forums and blogs as sources? 209.225.116.10 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted or reverted back, they'd mean the same in this case. You edited, I reverted, you reverted back. Slander is not my concern (nor is libel, which would be the case here :P), policy is my concern. Why the article is important to me or if I own bettas is not important or relevant. Look, we have policies. The ones I am citing are WP:RS and WP:V. If you will look, WP:RS clearly states here that forums and blogs are rarely reliable sources. I have been editing here a while now, and I have never seen a case where it was appropriate. If you cannot provide a reliable source, then it does not belong as it does not meet WP:V. It's that simple... If you cannot provide reliable sources, then it does not belong. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit) I'll also note, I opted to place a {{fact}} tag instead of removing it. However if someone removes it, you should not reinsert it without a reliable source. That goes not only for this article, but any article. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(Windowsforgood (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Please remove the disclaimer. There is no dispute. I fully agree with the person editing before. Please remove that and let it be.

There is a dispute. I'm not the only editor who has acknowledged it. It also happens that the editors who want it gone haven't edited a single other article, aka WP:SPA, the ones who recognize the dispute are not. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 05:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your sig on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan87. It seems to be larger then the surrounding text which puts odd spaces around the surrounding lines. If you would please remove the font-size:14px bit in your sig it would be greatly appreciated. I've already done so on that case page. Thanks :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 15:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 18:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at my block log and take a look at the last time I got blocked. =D I also got permission before moving certain articles this time. =D Whoo! Yay, me! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

:) Almost a month. I'd noticed that there haven't been many people complaining on your talk page. There are a lot of policies and guidelines here. The sheer number can make things difficult when someone first starts editing, but it seems that you're figuring things out. Way to go! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 04:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I requested the rollback feature March 3rd (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=prev&oldid=274840401) and Tiptoey told me to go a month without blocks and edit wars and then request it again in a month or so, and neither have happened so far. =D - Eugene Krabs (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! I'm rooting for ya ;) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 04:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(Windowsforgood (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

I thought I was blocked for 48 hours. And I'm unsure why I am considered a "sockpuppet". I am not any of those other users. I happy to agree with a lot of the stuff and so I keep reinserting. Why am I still blocked from editing Wittenberg wikipedia site?

It was an awfully big coincidence that I requested Seanusa90 to reply to my post on the talk page here at 5:06 UTC, and then you created your account at 5:09 and replied to me. That is why you were blocked as a sock. It is extremely obvious that there are large socking issues on that article. The reason that you are now unable to edit the article is because it is semi-protected in order to stop the socks and WP:SPAs from using the article to recruit potential students. When it becomes unprotected, if you or any socks try to reinsert "We have Starbucks, Ski ball, and a World Famous that Google's never heard of restaurant!!1!!one!" again, I will again go to WP:ANI, and it will likely be protected again (and for longer) and socks blocked. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(Update) And now that you have inserted the same type of Copyvio into the article that all of the other SPAs have, it is pretty much confirmed that you are a sock. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 07:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

i just wanted to say hi haras (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Now please don't use Wikipedia as a chat room as it appears that you have been doing. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He keeps reverting my edits here and refuses to listen to me. I've already given him several warnings, as seen here. Help, please. ^_^ - 06:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it appears that he is technically removing unsourced information. Your best bet would probably be to source it and see if he stops. If he continues after that, then you could seek out WP:Dispute Resolution. I would try asking him on his talk page exactly why he is doing it instead of using templates. This appears to be a content dispute, and templates/warnings really shouldn't be used in content disputes. Hopefully, he will stop if you provide a reliable source. Hope this helps. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I submitted another one, but Pedro would like some commenters. Would you be one, please? =D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Eugene_Krabs - Eugene Krabs (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please add information about Wittenberg's geology museum in the Wittenberg article. http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/geol/resources/facilities.html Please place this under Barbara Deer Kuss Science Center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samual890 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(Samual890 (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC))You are driving me crazy. What did I do wrong? Why is that you are going after this article and not other articles on here. I'm done editing for a while and that was all I wanted to add. I hope we can quit fighting.

I have no desire to fight. I added the tag because of reasons that I laid out twice on the talk page. I have 4,285 pages on my watchlist, and of those, this is the only one currently going through this. That is why I am going after this one. The article reads like a press release for the University. Between copyright violations, sockpuppets, and blatant POV, I am just doing what I believe is best for Wikipedia and may be at least somewhat effective. If other articles that I watched were going through this problem, I would go after those, too. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I archived March 2009 today, so instead of posting in the archive, please continue the discussion about pointing out more of my good and bad edits here.

- Thanks,
Mr. Krabs (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'm actually going through some edits now, so I'll give you some feedback sometime today. Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay, more point-outs! *waits patiently* - Mr. Krabs (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could give me some helpful hints on how to finally get the rollback feature next time I try? Also, do you have any helpful hints on applying for adminship? - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 00:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Sure, no problem.

Rollback

If you keep absorbing all of the advice that you've been given, then your next request for rollback will likely be successful. Just continue to make sure that you explain your reverts of good-faith edits. When admins are reviewing your request for rollback, they'll look at your reverts, and if you don't give an explanation, they'll likely assume that you would've used rollback in that revert. If an edit was in good-faith edit but no explanation was given for reverting, then your chances of getting approved will decrease. You've been doing a much better job at this, so I think that you're well on your way. If you wait the amount of time that the declining admin suggested and continue explaining good-faith reverts, then I think that you will probably be successful in your next request. In the meantime, you might want to consider trying WP:TWINKLE. It basically acts the same as rollback.

Adminship

Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is a pretty good guide for requesting adminship. I don't have any experience at WP:RfA, but I'll try to give some tips from what I've seen by lurking. I would suggest that you wait 6 months from the time of your last block before applying. You should give ample time to show that you've learned from past mistakes and prove that they will not be repeated. You would also need to branch out into Admin-related areas, such as WP:AfD, WP:AIV, and WP:RFPP. Edit summary usage is another thing that is often looked at during RfAs. You should strive to always leave some kind of edit summary when you make an edit. As I said before, your summaries during reverts are greatly improving, but I noticed that a lot of your regular edits didn't have edit summaries. Just try to leave a small edit summary explaining what you did, whether it's just "capitalization" or "formatting". Explaining why and pointing to the guideline or policy is often helpful, but can get rather tedious when making a lot of minor edits.

Hope this helps. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask :) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 06:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! How exactly do I use Twinkle? - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To install it, just post

importScript('User:AzaToth/twinkle.js');

to your monobook.js file. Once you install it, anytime a look at a top diff, you'll have 3 extra options, "Rollback (AGF)", "Rollback", and "Rollback (Vandal)". Any of these allow you to roll back edits, but just try to use an appropriate one. Obviously you wouldn't click "Rollback (Vandal)" to a good-faith edit. Either of the other options (besides Vandal) allows you to leave an explanation, which is great. Twinkle also has several other handy tools. It puts some extra tabs at the top that allows things such as to allow to easily nominate an article for deletion, report a vandal to AIV, request page protection, and quickly warn users. Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc give the specifics. One thing about it though is that it does not work for Internet Explorer. Also keep in mind that just like rollback, Twinkle can be taken away if abused. I honestly don't think that you'll have many problems. Take it a lil slow until you get the hang of it and make sure not to use the "Rollback (Vandal)" button when reverting a bad but good-faith edit :) If you have any questions about it, don't hesitate to ask. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eugene_Krabs/monobook.js - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any extra options. - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. You probably need to bypass your cache. If you're using Firefox, then you can hold shift and click on reload to do it. For other browsers, WP:BYPASS tell how. If that doesn't work, let me know, and I'll see if I can figure it out. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The only options I see are "Unlink" and "xfd". It also says my account is too new to use Twinkle when I click "xfd". Is that normal?
And for reference, I use I.E. 7. - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 17:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the IE7 would be the problem. It doesn't work right with it. In order to use it, you have to use another browser. That's actually the reason I started using Firefox :) To my knowledge, Twinkle only works with Firefox, Chrome, Camino, and Safari. It may work with others, but I know it doesn't work with IE. That's probably why you're getting the account is too new message. Sorry. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The only Firefox I know of is Mozilla. Would that work? I can download it if it'll work for Twinkle. - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That should work fine. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I like I.E. 7 because you can have more than one homepage. On Mozilla, you can't. =/.
Anyway, Mozilla's up. Let's test it. =) Post some fake vandalism or something on my userpage or talk page. - Mr. Krabs (Contributions) (Talk) 17:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done I vandalized your user page. You should feel proud, you were my first vandalism target ;) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

please you know nothing ever comes from the discussion page. please move commmon (entertainer) to common (artist) or common (rapper) as it was moved to common (entertainer) without discussion. 122.57.74.237 (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page is where we get stuff done. It's one of the primary principles of Wikipedia. I've never discussed it nor have an opinion on the matter, but this is not appropriate. Posting it on the discussion page might get the wheel started for you. Continuing to post it on the article will likely just get you blocked. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 12:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you happen to check here again, please stop posting that in the article. Posting it in the article will accomplish nothing. If you seriously think it should be moved then post it on the talk page. If nobody answers there, you can post a request at WP:RM, but continuing to deliberately posting discussion to the article instead of the talk page is unacceptable. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you please move the article for me? It was moved without discussion, so presumably it would be acceptable to move it back without discussion?219.89.54.73 (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done! - Eugene Krabs (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the person, so I may really be off-base, but at a glance, I thought that the original name was probably correct. AFAIK the consensus has been to place people who are famous for more than one medium is to place it at (entertainer). I thought (artist) was more for the traditional definition of artist. I'll admit though, I'm behind on this, which is why I thought it should be brought to a larger audience. If you are more familiar with what the current naming conventions are though, that's fine. I'd just like to point out something about doing something "per request". I've been requested to place WP:COPYVIOs, WP:OR, WP:SPAM and WP:POV into articles, as well as being WP:CANVASSed requesting that I suggest GA status for an article as well as being requested that I get involved in edit wars (usually POV pushing) that I am not even slightly involved in (I've seen a lot worse requested of other editors, those are just some things that I personally have been requested to do). I'm not complaining about this move (I'm behind on a lot of naming conventions), I'm just making sure that when you do something per request that you agree that it is correct and not just doing because it is requested. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 12:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much219.89.54.73 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me get my December 2008 archive deleted? It really doesn't have enough comments worth keeping. It only has two, and those aren't even warnings or admin/user comments, just a welcome and a speedy deletion notification. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eugene_Krabs/December_2008&action=history - 14:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I doubt that I can be much help there. Per Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_talk_pages.3F, user talk pages usually aren't deleted. I know that archives done via the page move method aren't either. I honestly don't know what the common practice is on archives done via copy and paste method. I'd guess that you're best bet would be to message an admin or use {{adminhelp}} and explain that you want it deleted and the archive was done by copy and pasting, so the history on the main talk would still be intact. If they don't want to delete it, then you would still be free to blank it and use the page as another sandbox or something. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'll do. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Look! =D: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eugene_Krabs - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. You can never have too many sandboxes ;) Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not really gonna use it, I did this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eugene_Krabs/Sandbox_2&action=history
If I ever do need it, though, I'll remove it. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That'll work. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What's AWB? - Eugene Krabs (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never used it, but to my knowledge, it's a program that allows for quick edits to multiple pages, mainly repetitive edits. What I notice it being used most often for is for common spelling mistakes, fixing templates, and whatnot. I believe that users have to be approved to use it. Since I have no experience with it, the page you linked to can probably tell you more about it than I can though. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 22:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with him. I could always tell that he had good intentions, even if the execution left a lot to be desired.—Kww(talk) 12:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping him as well. I think that you were the first to really get through. I've noticed a few editors who obviously meant well, but were just being disruptive and end up just getting indef-blocked or just never come back after block. I was afraid that I was seeing the same pattern and wanted to see if I could help stop that. I think he's starting to get it. He still seems to have bad days, but I honestly think that he'll eventually get by those. Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 12:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you do something?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo_language&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buyeo_languages&action=history - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some major edit warring from both sides. It definitely does not appear to be vandalism. I should note that had I been on when that was posted, that I could not have done anything but try to communicate with the editors because there is no way that I would jump in the middle of an edit war like that. You better be careful about reverting like that, it doesn't appear that you violated WP:3RR, but you can still be blocked for edit warring even if you have not violated it. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 11:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that you were blocked and unblocked last night. I have to say that you were lucky to be unblocked because it appears that you were edit warring on at least 4 different pages (the 3 above and User talk:Blappo). Also, I don't know about the dispute in the 3 articles, but you were clearly in the wrong on reverting the user talk page. [1] [2] [3] As I know that I explained at least twice, per WP:BLANKING, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. The only exceptions AFAIK are users cannot remove declined unblock requests while still blocked, sockpuppet tags, and shared IP tags for anon users. Unless the editor is removing one of these three things, you should not revert them from removing whatever they want. Please stop making these reverts. If you have another edit warring spell like you did last night, you're likely to go on a forced vacation. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 12:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)