Hello Cometstyles! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- THLCCD 12:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
|
Getting Started
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
Policies and Guidelines
|
|
|
The Community
|
|
|
Things to do
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
Archives
... just kidding. :D I ran across this edit, and it made me giggle, so I just had to do this. :P Cheers :) --slakr\ talk / 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah I don't know how he found out, damn,he is good :p ...--Cometstyles 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol! :) The bot wasn't discounting Jeff, it just has problems, with humans not using machine-readable rationales :) Now that there's a second oppose, it's counting them correctly :) SQLQuery me! 21:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- good, for a moment I thought the bots hated Jeff as well XD ...--Cometstyles 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, all the interactions I've had with the guy have been positive :) SQLQuery me! 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Odoacer was not a hun but a Germanic king, he served in earlier life the Hun but at the time of the roman empire fall the Huns were already gonefrom history, Odoacer was leader of germanic tribes and became king of italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.118.151 (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, wait a minute: "offensive username"?! That hurts! :)
Thanks for reverting that. --barneca (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah I should have tagged it as a "friendly username" P: ..--Cometstyles 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting the section on the article 'Ho Yeow Sun' earlier. I'm a member of WP:FACT & despite my previous NPOV editing & verification (I'm an uninvolved party) of the affected section in helping to alleviate the situation. The revert war, raging on for months by a group of recalcitrant deletists ('Jing13', 'Cane sg', including acts of sockpuppetry, COI edits etc), & anonymous IPs still continue unabated to this very day. As such, I would like to request a permanent page protection (against anonymous IPs editing) until the case is fully resolved as per talkpage discussion in order to uphold one of the five pillars of Wikipedia on the article. I hope this nonsense can come to an end once & for all, for the common good of Wikipedia in the long run. Thank u. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I get that a lot, maybe its because People think I have been in Wikipedia so long that I might be an admin, honest mistake..Thanks anyways.. :) ..--Cometstyles 10:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ahh, no..its a bad idea..--Cometstyles 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please justify your re-insertion of an unsourced personal essay into the Extremism article. Articles on Wikipedia must meet WP:V and be verifiable with citations to reputable published sources. That section was somebody's personal essay. 70.108.97.105 (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandals
Hi, I thought I'd drop you a message, as I've seen you a lot on Huggle. It seems you are a very active vandal fighter, and, I think you should be commended for your efforts, so...
moved to userpage
I think you'd make the English Wikipedia better if you were an administrator here. I'm a novice nomination writer, but if you'll accept, I'd be happy to nominate you. WODUP (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you already were... Seconded! :) SQLQuery me! 17:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, again, not interested Yet, maybe when I start attacking editors and becoming a pain in the ***, I may qualify ..hehe...--Cometstyles 20:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, can I enquire why you are reverting my edits? And then in the case of the Equal pay for women page re-reverting your revert of my edit, but not doing so in the case of Bahrain?
Thanks, Zinc White (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- because it was perfect for Equal pay for women but it didn't fit in the Bahrain article since it was the same thing repeated..so it made no sense putting it there as well..--Cometstyles 11:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for watching the above. Ref (chew)(do) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya... I'm not sure whether the info there is valid or not, so I yanked it per WP:BLP as unsourced, since it seems questionable, because the rest of the article doesn't allude to it. Feel free to readd it if you know of a source. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 12:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cometstyles, I don't know what you know about Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction.
Yesterday the wikipedia article on Faraday's law was in good shape until Steve Byrnes imposed his confusion on it.
Steve Byrnes has identified the well known fact that the Faraday's law in Maxwell's modern equations only caters for the inductive, but not the convective vXB aspect of electromagnetism. This seems to have caused him alot of confusion.
I do however believe that he now sees the picture.
Unfortunately his edits to the Faraday's law wikipedia article represented a case of somebody thinking out loud while trying to rationalize with the connection between two different forms of Faraday's law.
He has over zealously amended the article by confusing these two forms with the issue of there being two different Faraday's laws.
The deficiency of the Maxwell/Heaviside version can easily be explained in a sub-section.
There is only one Faraday's law. There is no need for all the confusion that Steve Byrnes has added to what was a clear cut article about Faraday's law.
That's why the article was reverted back to the way it was yesterday.
Yet you seem to be adamant that Steve Byrnes' new version should remain.
Are you a physicist? Why are you so sure that Steve Byrnes' edits have any merit? Why were you so hasty to revert the reversion? 58.69.126.123 (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cometstyles,
You've just reverted my edit on English orthography, claiming it would have been unconstructive. It can't see why: I had added phonetic information about how to read the words using ou digraph, which was on topic, especially for people who do not speak English as a first language and do not necessarily know how to pronounce the words given as example.
I had also removed one item (lazy) out of the list of words which, said the article, contain the same vowel as in me, i.e. /iː/. Please check in any good dictionary: the phonetic values for famous, journey, loud, should, you, flour and tour I had given were correct and there is no /iː/ in lazy, which is commonly read /leɪzɪ/ (Robert & Collins, Dictionnaire anglais-français, English-French Dictionary).
At last, I had put in bold letters the ones which should be read /iː/ in the list paediatric, me, seat, seem, ceiling, people, chimney, machine, siege and phoenix because guessing which of all the vowels in these words has to be read so is not self evident.
Moreover, I had filled the edit box to justify my edit.
I really do not appreciate this kind of quick and not thoroughly thought reverts; you made me waste my time. I will revert your revert: do what you want thereafter, I won't care but do not expect people to commit themselves to Wikipedia with this sort of behaviour.
82.224.148.208 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
y r u changing r my contributions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estel21 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're fast. It seems that your rollback was so fast that Twinkle didn't interrupt my rollback. Sorry. --Abrech (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- np..usually, I'm on the receiving end :P ...--Cometstyles 10:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my statement on the AfD for Eve_Carson????? 24.124.109.67 (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, this is just to let you know that one of your rollbacks was too hasty. A good faith, correct, and needed edit by an anonymous editor appears to have been rollbacked by you.
Everyone in counter vandalism makes mistakes, so this is not a warning or even a complaint. I just wanted you to see the edit in case you come across more like this. Usually if the anon contrib is in vaguely complete sentences without profanity or slurs, the edit should be treated as good faith. If the edit has bad grammar or spelling, this should be corrected, with an edit summary. Leaving out the edit summary makes the edit seem no better than vandalism, and discourages new editors from editing and getting an account. This anon is probably an experienced editor from pl.wikipedia.org as its recent edits are often interwiki, while his IP was used by vandals before, so I think he understands the occasional improper rollback. At any rate, thanks for your work. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked over the last fifty or so rollbacks, and by far most are right on target. There were a couple of good-faith edits that probably should have been reverted with edit summary (such as "unsourced addition"), rather than rollbacked as (no better than) vandalism.
- The other 47 or so seem right on target, so to be clear, it looks like you are doing an excellent job. JackSchmidt (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, how would he know how long mine was? [1]
- Maybe he is right outside your house..looking through the window O_O :P ..hehehe..and thankies for the Barnstar..wow..that revert was in February :D--Cometstyles 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you trying to block me adding a template to the world rowing championship pages?
- you were also removing the "succession box" as well which is not allowed, you can add stuff bvut not by removing another important template...--Cometstyles 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the template replaces the succession boxes!
And I created the succession boxes in the first place! I am updating my work!
|
