User talk:Littlealien182

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Tom DeLonge[edit]

You're right, that edit does seem to make sense. Leaving it out until we find some references seems like the best idea for this situation. Thanks for notifying me. — BassGuitarist182 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I'll go ahead and remove it. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct[edit]

Sorry about the Coldplay edit without a reference, I am searching for one now. I heard it on a local radio station (WJRR - Orlando). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoity (talkcontribs) 03:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

UCLA[edit]

why do you keep deleting my changes to the establishment of ucla? i have researched the topic at great length and it seems pretty clear that 1881, is the correct date, given that the state normal school was changed to the southern branch of the UC. please compare this history of Ariz State, SDSU, SJSU, SFSU and chico state, and you will see they are all former normal schools and trace their establishment to the creation of the normal school. same thing should be true with ucla. also, take a look at the history of the outlook, the forerunner of the daily bruin; and the history of the ucla's graduate school of education - both trace their roots to the los angeles state normal school

regards,anderskw Anderskw (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the state normal school was established in 1881, but UCLA, in its present form, was not established as part of the University of California until 1919. This date is the most accurate "establishment date." I'm not denying the fact that UCLA's origins can be traced back to its roots as a normal school, but to say that UCLA existed before 1919 is not only misleading, but also patently incorrect. The origins of UCLA, as a normal school, are still in the text of the article, but the date in the infobox is the year that the normal school became a part of the University of California. This is the date that UCLA recognize and it is also the date that students, alumni, faculty, and staff are familiar with. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
1919 is the earliest year that can be placed with the Fiat Lux seal of the University of California for UCLA. A school was established in 1881. The school became a branch of UC Berkeley in 1919. The current name was adopted in 1927. It moved campuses in 1929. This discussion should be carried on at the UCLA talk page. Group29 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor review[edit]

Hi,

I came across your editor review. Do you intend to transclude it to the main page to get some reviews, or can it be deleted? Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was on the main page, but I was having trouble transcluding it so maybe it never made it to the main page. Is there anyway you can help me transclude it? —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit the page as usual, and add it to the list, like so: {{User:Littlealien182/ER1}}. The other entries should help. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Say Anything[edit]

Yeah, "Early years" is probably a good idea. --icorey (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Blink 182[edit]

Personally I don't really see any reason to remove a summary table. It doesn't take up too much space and is quite handy as a direct reference point for band members rather than having to read through all the text. If you feel it is superfluous however, feel free to remove it, I won't revert. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA[edit]

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem! You are an excellent editor and are definitely worthy of admin status. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: You definitely deserve one more barnstar[edit]

Thanks! I love the recursiveness :D Gary King (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha[edit]

LOL, 1337. Look it up ;) chamaeleon chamaeleon (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pi Kapp Stats[edit]

Can I ask what the purpose of {{Pi Kapp Stats}} is? It seems like it is unnecessary since all it is is the stats that you can just manually put into the infobox. In fact, it makes the infobox more cluttered by putting the template in there instead of the numbers. On top of that, someone who is unfamiliar with templates on Wikipedia will not know what is going on if they go in there to update the data in the infobox. What, do you believe, is the need for this template? Thanks, either way (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an explanation as to why I felt it was necessary to substitute these values with a template on the template's page. But, to put it briefly, I did it because these values are listed multiple times within the article and change rather frequently. The template allows a user to update these statics on one page so that they always remain unified and consistent. Also, I plan on incorporating this template into the List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters, List of Pi Kappa Phi alumni, and other Pi Kappa Phi fraternity related articles (and future articles that I plan on writing). This template will allow all of the figures in these articles to remain consistent and, conveniently, will make it much easier to update them. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback is no big deal unless you need speed[edit]

Re: User_talk:Pedro#Rollback_question, I've had rollback for several months but I rarely use it - I've used it on less than a handful of days I think. It has the major downside of not allowing customized edit summaries. I've found I use it in two occasions: When a vandal has multiple consecutive edits and it's clear no edit summary is needed, or when a vandal, usually an IP vandal, is reverting my reverts, and I need the speed advantage rollback has. Ironically, I needed to do this last night, which was the first time I'd used rollback in awhile. Personally, I prefer to either use undo or find the last good version and edit-and-save it by hand, with a descriptive edit summary. This also has the advantage of forcing me to be deliberate in my edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. helpful edits at UCLA[edit]

Hi. I'm going to have to disagree strongly with this reversion and and the associated {{uw-vand1}} warning you gave to the anonymous editor who made the edit you reverted. Not only is that edit not the kind of vandalism for which one would use Twinkle's "rollback (VANDAL)" button, but seems to be, in fact, a helpful elaboration of the rather vague phrase "popular images of the Southern California lifestyle." The IP editor seems to have immediately re-added what your reversion struck, hopefully blaming technical difficulties and not realizing that his or her contribution had been labeled vandalism and summarily redacted. It would be tragic to scare away a helpful contributor on his or her first edit. I have replaced your warning on the IP's Talk page with a welcome template. If you still think this is a case of vandalism and you're seeing something in this that I'm not, please let me know your reasoning. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 08:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This very same edit has been made to the UCLA page in the past from a different IP (but likely the same editor). You're right in one sense: perhaps my level of warning was too strong. But the edit, in no way, is constructive. Adding "emphasizing freedom in a land of perpetual sunshine" is a great way to make make an already-vague-statement even more vague. It has been reverted in the past and the repetitive nature of this edit is what led me to constitute it as vandalism. Perhaps I was too harsh, but the edit should not remain on the page. The original clause should be removed or followed by a more substantive description. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Phi Kap Members category[edit]

I'm almost finished breaking down Category:Lists of chapters or members of United States student societies into the three types of pages listed there, a) Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college , b) Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society and c) Category:Lists of members of United States student societies .

In the process, I have recatted 98 pages, and the only one left in the original category is the Phi Kappa Alumni sandbox page that you have. I don't alter things in other people's sandboxes, so could you please change the category on your sandbox page to Category:Lists of members of United States student societies so that I can propose the original category for deletion? I've already changed the Phi Kap pages that were in the mainspace. Thank You.Naraht (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you need anything else. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope that's what I needed. ThanxNaraht (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: A small favor[edit]

Uh, okay, sure. It's kind of a strange request, but since I'm checking my watchlist every few seconds, I don't mind adding another page to it. Have a nice break! Gary King (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Failed Doppelganger[edit]

Hi, please could you visit User:Jac16888/Sandbox#Failed Doppels. This is a list of failed attempts by users to create doppelganger accounts, and at least one of the pages is yours. Creating a doppelganger account involves actually registering the account as you would normally, simply creating a userpage doesn't do it. Please either create the account, or else indicate that you no longer want the page(s) so that I can delete it. Thank you--Jac16888Talk 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been on in a long time. School is taking over my life. I think you probably deleted the doppelganger already, which is fine. Thanks for your post. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 05:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, yeah I got a bit impatient about it. thanks--Jac16888Talk 15:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dance Marathon at UCLA[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dance Marathon at UCLA. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Marathon at UCLA. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dance Marathon at UCLA[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dance Marathon at UCLA. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Marathon at UCLA. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:LadyDanville.jpeg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:LadyDanville.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.78.53 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AlphaOmicronofPiKappaPhi.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:AlphaOmicronofPiKappaPhi.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AlphaTauRensselaer.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:AlphaTauRensselaer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)