You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
Your comments on the "impertinent research" page
I noticed your comment on User:Petesmiles/Impertinent Research. In case you were wondering, FYI, you're at least five years older than the youngest user, and at least two years older than the youngest admin. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, totally serious. I know there are at least one 13-year-old and two 14-year-old admins, and there are a fair number of others who have identified themselves as teens but not given a precise age who might be that young as well. We have also had a 14-year-old bureaucrat (that's a more exclusive access than administrator) and a 17-year-old member of the Arbitration Committee. Although there is debate about details occasionally, this is pretty much an egalitarian group and anyone is free to contribute and assume whatever responsibilities they are ready for regardless of age (there are a very few limitations, such as Board of Trustees membership and maybe Checkuser access, are reserved for over-18's for legal reasons, but hopefully that won't cramp your style too badly :) ). By way of contrast, the oldest admin I know of is 64. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't think admins were *allowed* by the community to be that young - I'd be guessing there was some apprehension as to giving them sysop due to their age? It's nice to know that all age groups are represented, though. SMC 04:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perennial topic of debate, but the consensus to date has been that age doesn't matter. Yes, there might be "some apprehension" about giving admin status to a random kid/teen off the street, but after a few months and a few thousand quality edits, the community generally feels comfortable evaluating the candidate based on that rather than anything else. If you start reading RfA's or the RfA-talk page you'll see the issue come on on occasion. Newyorkbrad 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Edit count and quality is of more value on Wikipedia than age. Thanks for the discussion; you've cleared up a few things. :)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
ATT Poll
Did you realize you put your vote in the 3rd section "Neutral/qualified/compromise/other"? Just asking. Johnbod 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't nonsense!!!
It was true, Michael fagan did have sex with the queen alright! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.181.162 (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
School Assessment
Very quick answer is references. Look at the ref and references tag. "Derby School" for instance uses them. Lack of refs will block you from scoring more highly. Longer answer will follow ... but maybe you can one or two quickly`?? Victuallers 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prompt attention. You have added external links. I think you need to re read the comment above .... do and look at Derby school and look at the source. find the "references" tag.... Victuallers 09:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done rhode scholars ... see the new references section. More to do obviously ... Victuallers 09:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Pleased to see your assessment ... it was worth it! Do spread your skills now you know how to ref Victuallers 15:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
me thank you for coooookie
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SMC, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:TV cookie monster monsterpiece theatre.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:SMC. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry to bother you, but as a LoCE member, I just wondered if you would be willing to have a look through the Sheerness article. It is currently a Featured Article Candidate and needs a copy-edit for grammar by someone who hasn't yet seen it. Any other ways to improve the article would also be welcome. Thank you very much, if you can. Epbr123 12:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Arthurfancy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 10:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Automatically delivered by COBot 03:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cokeamatil.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cokeamatil.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there. The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
The Wikipedia SignpostWeekly Delivery
%
Downbeat
I need some guidance here. I understand my method of trying to stop the deletion of a disputed category was a bit crude. However, I did not know what to do. I was aware of the dispute only because I was watching this category's page and I am convinced that all the others users or potential users of this new category had no means to know about the dispute. Getting back to your suggestion to directly warn other users, my question to you is: "Which users?" I don't know any of them. This gets us right back to my original question: "How to warn Wikipedians interested in this category that they will lose it?" Catch twenty-two!! Jazzeur (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just a question
why did you edit my sugababes post, then cancel it???
im confused
chau\/baby 11:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no problem whatsoever chau\/baby 13:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question. on the dame darcy thing, should i completely eliminate the myspace link altogether? she wants it, but if official myspace links are not considered proper for wiki, i need to know, so i can tell her.Toylandgrrrl (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)toylandgrrrl[reply]
Dame Darcy again
Toylandgrrrl (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)toylandgrrl
She and her bandmate manage it. Until there are more sources out there on Death by Doll, the inclusion is rather important for the article. What do you think?[reply]
ah
Hmm, that makes sense. Thanks!Toylandgrrrl (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)toylandgrrrl[reply]
I did not attack him, I was rephrasing what he said. I didn't say he was an idiot for believing it, I said "one" would have to be an idiot to believe it. There's a difference between the two, a significant difference. He never said he believed it, so I couldn't say he believed it, but I was commenting on his comment. Grammar is my specialty, so don't claim I attacked him.PokeHomsar (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'm removing the quote, as someone skimming the page might read it as a warning to you. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
saint george
SMC, i would like to inform you that i ave never visted Saint george'spage, let alone edit his page. you must have an error with your sytem of acquiring users IP adresses as this was not me.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Bert Copple
An editor has nominated Bert Copple, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Copple and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3RR Dmod - Cave Clan article
In reply to your message, if you feel that the user is causing serious difficulty by his behaviour, open a request for comment. If you feel that the article is being disrupted by edit warring, open a request for protection. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit my paragraphs
My paragraph China Life Insurance Company (Taiwan) is not rubbish passage. I am editing right now.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky@36 (talk • contribs)
Please don't be sensitive on new paragraphs next time, thanks! Sometimes administrator's warnings do not make sense, i.e. they like to issue meaningless warnings! You may rather refer to users' records on adding and editing the paragraphs to decide whether the paragraphs are rubbish. Maybe I use more preview functions to edit the paragraphs next time.
hiya i'm new to this i just wanted to start my article and save it can i please have time to alter it Sammymakes (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith edits
I think that this edit here may have been in good faith rather than vandalism. Even though it took away from the page, the person that edited may have been trying to help out the page. It was the right decision to change the page back, but I personally thing it might have been better to tell the person how to go about editing next time instead of warning them for vandalism. Thanks, KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
public holidays in Germany (I've reverted your unintended vandalism)
december 26 is not Nikolaustag, St. Nikolaus is on December 6th and it's not a public holiday!!!
december 26 is St.Stephans-Tag, but it's not often called that in Germany. It's usually refered to as Zweiter Weihnachtsfeiertag = Second day of Christmas!
Editing
I understand the removal, but it was re-organizing the article more effectively. Citing the review rather than listing it as a link. Furthermore, I un-did your undo, as the reception is a more balanced artice, 2 (-) and 2 (+) with equally citied sources. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.248.152 (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi There,
I'm just sending a quick message in regards to reverting the changes for the Aurora Community Channel page. I think that you are incorrectly reverting the information and here are the reasons why:
1/ Aurora Community Channel was not originally created by Marque Owen - it was created by a gentleman named Michael Kelly. Marque Owen was hired to be the first CEO once the channel was created.
2/ Aurora does hold a subscription tv licence to broadcast on Foxtel, Austar and Optus as a community channel. The reason why Aurora does not hold the same licence as the free to air community channels is because Aurora does not operate in the same realm as these channels, or Satellite Community Television and Australian Multicultural Television for that matter. Aurora is carried on a digital signal while the free to air community channels are analogue. Therefore, the comparisions made between them and the comment about the free to air channels contesting Aurora's use of the term "Community Television" are irrelevant as in the digital spectrum, Aurora is licenced as a Community Channel.
3/ Aurora is not in competition with the free to air community channels as the following sentence would imply: "Some of these broadcasters have attempted to reduce supply of programming to Aurora by requesting collective exclusive rights to some third party productions" - Aurora does play content that is shown on the free to air Community Channels.
4/ There is a subscription fee involved to access UBI World TV - the sentence regarding UBI World TV in the Aurora Community Channel article implies that UBI World TV is available as a free to air channel - this is incorrect considering there is a subscription fee involved.
5/ The box at the bottom of the article "Community televison in Australia" is not relevant to Aurora Community Channel, for as I have previously mentioned, Aurora is operating in a different realm to the free to air Community Channels.
6/ The information in the article that keeps being reverted is not incorrect - Aurora is an independent not for profit channel on the digital platform that is available to over 6 million Australians.
I have made changes as Pinkadelica has asked me in order to maintained the editing standards, please remove Tag for clean up. I assure you that this is a well reserched article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.67.121 (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
What do you mean by If you could please point me to the diff where this user's edit occurred?. You could check history edit of the page. I have a request, for Template:History of Cambodia, if you want to put AD, then just put it in Funan box, before 68, the events after that don't need AD part, like many other templates. 96.229.193.68 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just so you know, the removal of content isn't always vandalism. There's a difference between unconstructiveness and blatant vandalism (which is really what Huggle was designed for). The content being removed persistenly by that IP was unreferenced and probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia anyway. Please be more careful and review your actions here thanks, —— RyanLupin • (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I was concerned about was that the edits never specified why the content was being removed, and I felt that the deleted content was actually of reasonably good quality. That particular diff indicates three referenced paragraphs within that section that the user deleted indiscriminately. Granted, there was a small amount of unreferenced content there - but there was no reason to blank the entire section, referenced and unreferenced parts alike. Could you please explain your reasoning, as I'm not quite sure why this particular content removal is deemed correct. Thanks. SMC (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That user was just blocked for 1 day - [1]. SMC (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, granted there were sourced material also removed but rollbacking and slapping a default vandal tag on the IP's talkpage doesn't assume good faith, the editor may have been trying to move the article around. I was watching it all on huggle, as soon as content was removed, you reverted within seconds. For these scenarios, it's advised that you leave a custom edit sommary and warn them about removing content rather than just pressing the standard "revert and warn" button. We scare a lot of potential editors away like this. I saw the user was blocked and I was hoping to place a clerk note on your AIV report asking the Admin to review the situation but it all happened too quickly. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a custom edit summary is a good idea, and I'll take that on board. The only thing is that the first level warning of blank is actually more assuming good faith than anything else; the warnings were ignored completely - no edit summary was provided, no user talk page message, just "fight the rollback". I've made mistakes before with users moving content around (with the content being relocated elsewhere on the page within the same edit) and I've corrected those mistakes. In this case, however, my reverting was fast because the content was placed *nowhere* else, the edit had severely damaged the page, no edit summary was provided, and frankly, it *did* appear to be straightforward vandalism. Either the user ignored the "new messages" warning at the top of the page (which would have well and truly appeared by the time of their second edit) or read the message and chose to ignore it. WP:AGF can only go so far. The timing of my rollbacks is not really the issue here, since those first two warnings would have been rather obvious (in terms of both presence and meaning). Assuming good faith is all well and good, but when the editor completely ignores talk page warnings whilst damaging an article, *something* needs to be done, which, unless I am mistaken, is why the warning templates and AIV exist. That said, I do believe the custom edit summary is a good suggestion. SMC (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see here that you rolled back nineteen edits by anon editor 98.202.92.59. Judging by the time stamps, it would appear that you were reacting only to this edit, which makes me wonder, why you were rolling back at all? Now of course, these things are somewhat subjective. I can certainly understand undoing that edit; after all, there are those (not myself, I admit), who object to that appellation, but I hardly think that its usage constitutes vandalism. Still, these things are a matter of opinion.
But it is specifically because this is such a borderline issue that we might want to consider whether or not rollback (which, after all, labels the one rolled back as a vandal) is the approach to take. For if you had gone back further in those nineteen edits, I think that the good faith of the editor would have been demonstrated. Indeed, by rolling him back, you re-introduced at least two misspellings that the anon had fixed, as well as deleted several citations for material in the article.
Of course, I'm sure that this was not your intention. And I'm quite sure that, given sufficient review of my use of rollback, that I too have likely erred a few times (indeed, I have caught and corrected myself at least twice that I can remember). I only point it out because it's been over 24 hours now, and there's no sign that you've caught it. My only suggestion would be to reconsider any possible hypersensativity that you may possess about that one issue, over which good people can honestly disagree. Happy editing. Unschool (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Resilient Barnstar
For your good grace in restoring an editor's good name number, both by reverting an error, and by offering a sincere apology; you may have turned an anon into a long-time positive contributor to this project. Good show. Unschool (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) I correct my errors as soon as I notice them, so I really appreciate your pointing out this major oversight. SMC (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting my edits to Chris Merritt's page
Hello there. I was wondering why you reverted my edit to Chris' page? I run these pages with his blessing and he is a friend of mine. I was meaning no harm. Can you enlighten me please?
Pirateking1121 (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned about the fact that you were promoting the MySpace/Facebook groups, and using Wikipedia as an advertising medium (WP:SOAP). It may be worthwhile adding a single mention about the existence of an official fan group, but not an entire section. Additionally, you have revealed you may have a conflict of interest due to your real life relationship with the article subject (Chris Merritt). You mentioned that you run these pages "with his blessing" - I'm not sure if you're referring to Wikipedia here, then you should be aware (and this ties in with the conflict of interest) that you do not own Wikipedia articles. In summary: it's probably okay to include a single mention, not a whole section, about an official fan group, but be careful (in general) to keep a neutral tone in your writing on this particular article. Thanks. SMC (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re
I was reverting the anon user's vandalism, something about a mr miller being a redneck. But Apparently I reverted to a previous already vandalized version of the article ! (please see talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maxis_ftw) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxis ftw (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. BTW, you take down anti-vandals at the speed of light! :) Maxis ftw (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cokeamatil.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
