User talk:98.248.33.198

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (98.248.33.198) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --clpo13_(talk) 09:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi there! Welcome, and I hope that you eventually decide to create an account. Anyway, I declined the speedy you placed here because the article doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria (CSD). Alternatively, I nominated it at articles for deletion as a blatantly non-neutral article. Thank you for this contribution, I just wanted to let you know so you don't make the same mistake again! Keep up the good work. ceranthor 11:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourced info

Hi there. Please your edits of mediumship on the talk page. Do not remove sourced information without a solid reason. Spritebox (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The edits fail to conform to notability and POV guidelines, as mentioned in my edit summary. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It is in mainstream media- just because you haven't heard of it it doesn't mean it lacks notability. Secondly, it merely gives an example, just because it actually speaks in favour of mediumship instead of against it like the rest of the article, it doesnt make it overly POV. Spritebox (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing with the assumption that the ability to speak with the dead is real is where the POV comes in. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick Joyner

Hi,

I don't know why my submission on Joyner has been removed, but I went to great lengths to insert a paragraph that provides further insight while being neutral. Would you please provide an explanation for editing out my paragraph, or provide suggestions for wording changes that are more acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theemute (talk • contribs) 20:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on Location hypotheses of Atlantis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

98.248.33.198 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since when is reverting blanking vandalism considered a blockable offense? If you review the article history in question, you'll easily see that huge portions of the section Near Cyprus were being deleted. I merely restored well referenced text. It also seems rather arbitrary that only one editor was blocked for "edit warring." 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand why you have been blocked - here on Wikipedia, we have a policy against edit-warring, in which two or more users revert each other's edits three or more times in a 24 hour period. If you believe that large portions of content should be removed or wish to dispute content in an article, article talk pages are where this is to be done. Wikipedia runs on consensus - not anarchy. While you are waiting for the block to expire, I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:3RR, WP:POV, and WP:AGF -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In regards to your questions, I blocked you for edit warring on Location hypotheses of Atlantis and not Xellas (talk · contribs) because you had been warned three times ([1], [2], [3]), while Xellas had received zero warnings. However I did go ahead and issue a 3RR warning to him [4] for his role in the edit war. I see that Xellas chose to disregard that warning by reverting the article again [5] to his preferred version, an action for which he was blocked for 31 hours [6]. — Kralizec! (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing

Hello 98.248.33.198, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Blueprint for Disaster: The Unraveling of Chicago Public Housing has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(remove tags)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

September 2009

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to SK PRODUCTIONS: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Please warn users when placing a speedy delete template on a page they created. Abc518 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The recent edit you made to Hollow Earth constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. Removing original research is not vandalism. Next time try looking at the history, which would have shown that several other editors agree it's inappropriate.98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Please take it a bit easier in your edit summaries if you could; also, when you're dealing with a contentious article, could I ask that when another party is obviously edit-warring, you take a report to the three-revert noticeboard for admins to get involved? Thanks for the work you're doing, btw - I just do suggest that you ease up with your comments to others, as they are starting to border on uncivil at times. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I filed an edit warring report on TelsaBlue here, so you don't need to do that. Other than that, I second everything Tony Fox said. Try not to go over 3 reverts in 24 hours yourself ... Cardamon (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Pubic hair, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eeekster (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You assume too much - my edit was about redundancy, not censorship. How many pics are needed to illustrate the article? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Twenty One Card Trick, you will be blocked from editing. Eeekster (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The coding contributes nothing to the article and is in fact completely unrelated to cards and magic. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That in no way relieves you of the obligation to explain your edits when deleting content. Eeekster (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but your lack of assumption of good faith is acceptable? HA! 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That assumption is only valid until evidence of bad faith is presented. This page and the block log tend to blow it for you. Eeekster (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Again with the faulty assumptions. Boy, you're 0 for 3 so far. Just go away. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please warn people when you undo their vandalism. --Abc518 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please Warn People when you revert vandalism. This is easy when you have Twinkle installed. but I think you need a user name to use it. abc518 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Please warn users when you tag their pages for Speedy Deletion. abc518 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Removal of PROD from Johnny Hiland

Hello 98.248.33.198, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Johnny Hiland has been removed. It was removed by Fozforus with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 314926982 by 98.248.33.198 (talk) - no need for that nonsense)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Fozforus before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Channel 7 (musician)

Just a friendly note on Channel 7 (musician). Remember to take a look at the article history when tagging for speedy deletion -- there was a "good" version that could be reverted back to. HTH! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Whois}} template

Wikipedia generally requires that this template is on the top of IP talk pages, simply for easy identification by administrators and recent changes patrollers. If you are concerned about your privacy, you can create an account, which will hide your IP address from Wikipedia editors. It's easy and has benefits, but I am afraid the {{Whois}} template must go on top of this talk page, and it is something you are not allowed to remove from the top of the page. Continuing to do so may lead to getting blocked. Regards, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. Since you claim this is required, can you point me to the policy that states this? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. That would be Wikipedia:USER#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings, where it states you may remove what you like from your talk page, with the exception of declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), as well as miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress) or, for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates. I have readded the template, but omitted the location. Feel free to create an account though. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. Listing a location does seem to be akin to outing somebody (I've had others use it to try to intimidate me into silence), so I appreciate your leaving that bit out. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's alright. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Happy editing, Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one question - any idea when that IP bit was added? I don't recall seeing it before. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The bit on your talk page or the part in the policy? The bit on your talk page was added here. The policy...er...I'd have to check. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy - my talk page is pretty obvious ;) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What account were you using at the time?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It was added here, 19 June 2008. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, just behave from now on and hopefully you won't see me here again :) But if you have questions you know where I am. :) Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked...or not

Hello. Based on my mis-reading of this wildly inaccurate block request at Administrator intervention against vandalism, I improperly blocked your ability to edit Wikipedia for approximately two minutes. I am sorry I did catch this before hitting the block button, and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience you may have suffered due to my mistake. — Kralizec! (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Jeff again. He has a pretty poor track record when it comes to understanding vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In case you did not catch my reply on my talk page, I am sorry I did not apologize to you first for the mistaken two minute block. Given the misuse of tools, I felt that needed to be addressed more urgently. Once had been taken care of, I came here to apologize, and only then went to my talk page to see my new messages. — Kralizec! (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I was teasing you. Don't worry about it. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Just a word of advice - you might encounter less of this "trouble" if you use edit summaries. No need to write a novel, just briefly explain your changes. RC patrollers tend to have a trigger finger, and they see a) IP user b) No edit summary c) Significant change, and they will often assume vandalism. Seeing an edit summary will slow them down, and actually look at your edit. Might make things easier. Thanks for your good work. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

reverts

I gather that in fact there is often reason to revert text to numbers, such as in centuries and times of day.--Numbersnow (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sanctuary_(single)

You can blank Sanctuary_(single) as the creator and only editor, and the page can then be speedy deleted. Ikip (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Except I didn't create the article. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

oh, I misread the nominators words. My apologies. Ikip (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that we are acquainted... :) Would you consider redirecting the article to Nami Tamaki right now?

Instead of having to wait 7 days, I can close the Afd right now, and only a redirect will remain.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No objection at all. While you're at it, you may want to look at her other singles articles as most of them have the same problem. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

thats great. I try to redirect all of these singles when they come up for deletion. anyone can redirect, without a afd, so when you see them, redirect them :) Ikip (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked. This barnstar is awarded to new user 98.248.33.198, for his willingness to work with other editors to come up with solutions which help satisfy everyone. Thank you for your work on this project. Ikip (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardy bucks

Two points about your speedy tag on this article just now: WP:CSD#A1, no context, didn't really apply - first, it was not a very short article, and second, it was fairly (though admittedly not very) clear that it was about somebody's amateur film. The article certainly should go, but there isn't a speedy that fits; I have PRODded it. Also, when you tag an article, you should notify the author by copying to his talk page the warning provided on the speedy template, so that he knows what's going on. Keep up the New Page Patrolling, though - it needs all the eyes it can get!. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed the line about it being a film - that was the lack of context I meant. I couldn't tell if it was a novel, TV show, YouTube flick or what. As long as it goes away, I'm content. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. There is useful advice about speedy-deleting from an experienced admin at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Concern over Suspected Sockpuppet tagging

Hi, I notice from some of your edits that you have been adding the same set of Suspected Sockpuppet tags to a series of pages, namely User_talk:MarcusSystems, User_talk:Traffic-award and User_talk:Anti-Sockpuppet. Whilst we appreciate your actions in bringing this to our attention, could you please explain why you suspect these users to be sockpuppets? I am concerned that you are possibly not understanding the consequences of your actions. Thanks for your help, Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple_socks_of_TheStrayCat 98.248.33.198 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've looked at that and I can now understand your concerns, in that some of these accounts are matching the MO of a previous sock, and there's a whole group of them together. I'll let this rest, and apologies for bothering you! :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No prob. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1080i revert

Why? Did you even read my changes? I requested for someone to fix the reference I made because I couldn't find a way to link the image (which is on Wikimedia Commons) inside the reference.

I ran out of space in the comment area so I could not write in more detail. Please change it back.

Notice: I made more changes than just add that reference. Comanoodle (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A screenshot is not a reliable source so no amount of formatting would make it a valid reference. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the edit comment. There is no other reliable source (or it is very difficult to find one). A screenshot is very much a reliable source. If I posted a picture of a turtle, which happens to have a head, as a reference for "a turtle has a head", and there was great difficulty in finding another source or there was none, would it be invalid?

The problem is that many sources are misinformed, misguided or outdated. Even on websites like the BBC or CNET.

The edits I made are correct, which is proven by the screenshot that shows that the "turtle has a head" in real life. I was unable to find a source I can cite, so instead I used a screenshot. You are free to search for one yourself. Please do not undo my changes when there is no other source.

Difficuly finding reliable sources is not justification to use unreliable ones. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's less difficulty, and rather an impossibility. How is it unreliable? I'm referring you to the turtle's head example again. Surely, in an article about turtle heads, a picture of a turtle to the side of the article, would invalidate the need for a reference to the statement "turtles have heads", wouldn't it? Another thing that bothers me is why you chose to remove the entire statement instead of just replacing the reference with "citation needed". Comanoodle (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If no reliable source can be found, then the information doesn't belong here. The turtle anology is invalid because the statement "Turtles have heads" is common knowledge. See WP:RS. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just semantics. How about "mutant turtles (hehe) with five limbs may be born"? I'm not saying that's true (though it might, just like how humans can have six fingers), but for the sake of the example, I'm sure a picture of a turtle with five limbs, taken by a member of Wikipedia, to the side of the article, would make a reference unnecessary. At first I thought perhaps it was unfitting to add that screenshot there, but why not? The article deals with 1080i. A screenshot of software displaying information of a 1080i stream would certainly be relevant to the entire article, don't you think? By the way, I'm sorry for the multiple edits, but I don't edit on Wikipedia much - so I keep forgetting to use preview. Comanoodle (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Comanoodle/1080i Comanoodle (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you please respond? Comanoodle (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I hate getting bogged down in semantics debates. Your screenshot doesn't meet Reliable sources guidelines for a number of reasons. Your logic that a single screenshot proves a general assertion is also faulty. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag on Isotype (picture language)

I did not realize that a conflict of interest tag would be generated if part of the page title is shared by my user name. I had innocently created a user identity with the name of an academic research project on the history of Isotype that I am working on. There is no commercial aspect involved: our aim is to do historical research and inform people of what we find, that's all.

I have now submitted a request to change my username in the hope of remedying this. Am I allowed to delete the tag from the page myself, while giving the above explanation? Isotype revisited (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

COI doesn't require a commercial aspect to be valid. It was actually inclusion of your own website that triggered my addition of the tag. If you feel you've been meticulously objective, feel free to remove the tag and the link. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New pages patrol

Hello. When you patrol new pages, all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled, whether you marked them for deletion or deemed them acceptable, unless you are not sure. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you. Jarkeld (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

IP users don't have that option. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Never knew that. Jarkeld (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TheStrayCat

I've just created this page per the AN/I thread and added a CU request. Please add the additional socks you know & submit any additional evidence as necessary. Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The PRODing of Tortoise George

A little while ago you PRODed said article, but did not notify the original author. This is usually considered "the proper thing to do", so I recommend that you add

{{subst:prodwarning|Tortoise George|concern = Fails the notability criteria for books}} ~~~~

to User talk:Smallfishbooks. By the way, I agree with the nomination and have endorsed it on the article page. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

notifying delete candidates

Hi, you're doing a lot of deletion nominations, which is great as far as I'm concerned, but you don't seem to be notifying people. This is pretty important, especially for new users who probably don't know the procedure for disputing the nomination, which is laid out in the standard warning templates. It'll cut down (I hope) on people simply removing templates and not following the rules.... or maybe that's too optimistic. At any rate, it just seems like common courtesy in most cases. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it is too optimistic ;D Most of the time they can't even be bothered to read the "don't remove this tag from articles you've created" blurb. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

...

I am chaddington. I am new, I am working. Thank you so much. I have much to learn. It is not obvious to me how I may contact you. You are smarter than I am. Please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaddington (talk • contribs)

You can start by reading the guidelines that have been listed on your talk page. The info you need is already there. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Chaddington says Hello

I think this might be right. Is this correct? Please tell me that you can read my message, Please. No new entries since August? I started yesterday. I am sorry. I may be writing to the wrong place. The chat room is not obvious. Please send clues. I have to research how to communicate here. I do not mean to bother you. Thank you.

Yes I can read your messages, but new ones usually go at the bottom of talk pages. If you'd like somebody to help you through your learning curve, I suggest WP:ADOPT. My mentoring days are in the past. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Demeter's Triple Goddess link

See Talk:Demeter#"Triple Goddess" link for a detailed explanation of my undoing your change to Demeter. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

You seem to know your way around here quite well. You don't need to say, but did you by any chance have an account at one point? Just interested. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I neither confirm or deny ;D 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you cheeky little bugger. Just for that... :P

Hello! I've noticed that you have edited Wikipedia without logging in to an account. It's great that you've been contributing; however, I urge you to create an account. Here is a list of the benefits of having an account:

• You can create new pages
• You can use watchlists
• You can upload images
• You can keep your account from being unfairly blocked if you share an IP address
• You can use scripts to better fight annoying vandalism
• After four days, you can edit semi-protected pages

There are no cons to signing up for an account. In fact, you can find even more pros at the "why create an account" page! Signing up is completely free and you don't need to enter any personal information! Plus you can have a user page, which you can use to show your interests, style, or nearly whatever! So, unless you can think of a con, please sign up for an account right now! Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But if I did that then those editors with tools and an anti-IP bias would be much more difficult to spot. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how you feel there, but the benefits of having account, imo, outweigh the benefits of IP editing. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the greatest!

I think you're terrific! Your editing skills are second-to-none on Wikipedia! You're firm but fair! I almost see you as a father figure! Lots of love! Kearney Zzyzwicz (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD Tagging

Hi, thanks for tagging TO READ OR NOT TO READ which I have now userfied as the newbies sandbox. I notice that you didn't template the author, may I suggest that you consider doing this to newbies in future, at least if they have redlinked talkpages? Otherwise they won't know what went wrong wiith their first edits on wikipedia. ϢereSpielChequers 08:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the best reason I've seen thus far for informing them, although my personal experience is that most of them don't bother to read the notices anyway and/or assume it means I'm going to adopt them and walk them through Wikipedia guideline by policy. Homey don't play that game no more. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks I bow to your experience on that. I'm not sure I agree with you but I don't quite have the experience to completely refute it. But there are two other reasons that I've come across, (though they don't apply to the case in question): Hopefully huggle will pay more attention to edits by editors who've just been warned for creating attack or vandalism pages; and admins are more comfortable blocking serial creators of vandalism pages if they've been appropriately warned. Cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers 11:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gertrude Noone

Hello 98.248.33.198, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Gertrude Noone - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Being the world's oldest person may qualify one for the Guinness World Records, but it hardly seems to meet the criteria of Wikipedia. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you very much for undoing the vandalism in the Revelation article!
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  23:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider creating an account for yourself!

Jack Lorenz

If you believe it is a copyright violation, than add a tag to have it deleted as a copyright violation. Edit warring, is not really a good way to solve things. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So you choose not to respond to the NPOV/tone issues or that you removed all the categories. Fine.98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of the content that you deleted did not appear to be POV and had citations, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Lorenz had the rare quality of being able to speak truth to power with humor and humility, not with antagonizing slogans."

"He was at home with all the diverse communities he had to enlist in his efforts to preserve the wild places in nature."

"Lorenz’s style of humor was reminiscent of Herb Shriner and Will Rogers."

"Lorenz’s work reflected a keen sense of altruism and practicality..."

Need I go on? And you're still not addressing the removal of categories or removal of a citation template. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I saw plenty of content that was cited and NPOV. If you didn't want it reverted, then maybe you shouldn't have done a wholesale deletion. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you're unwilling to admit that your edit reintroduced bad material, removed reference formatting, wiped out the entire list of categories and made a false accusation of vandalism. Duly noted. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit?

A few days ago, I made a contribution to binoculars in which I added a manufacturer of the product [7]. You undid my contribution. It wasn't vandalising, and it was backed up by a correct source. Please, tell me what I did that made you undo my edit on my talk page.

      -- The Wiki Appeal

Several reasons

• The manufacturer doesn't have a wiki page, failing notability
• The reference is to the results of a search engine, not a true web page. Search engine returns are generally discouraged.
• The primary reason is that the sole purpose of your source is to sell products, a clear violation of the spam links guidelines.

- 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Darren patten

Hello 98.248.33.198, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Darren patten has been removed. It was removed by Krishen94 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Krishen94 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

AfD nomination of Darren patten

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you very much for undoing the vandalism in the Westerlo article!
Inomyabcs (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider creating an account for yourself!

Shoit Neh Pig

Hi, re this prod, if you checked the article history you can see that someone's prodded it before and that the prod was removed - so it can't be prodded again. I've removed the prod; someone else has already AfD'd the article. Tim Song (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad. I think I ran across it in New Pages, it looked unaltered by an experienced editor, so checking the history didn't even occur to me. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion

When marking an article for speedy deletion, please notify the creator of that article on their talk page.

Account?

You've been doing some good work lately, have you considered registering for an account? Also, be sure to watch for violating the three revert rule. ceranthor 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. See User_talk:98.248.33.198#Hi_again for at least a partial reason why I edit as an IP. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RGSHW SLST

I have now referanced it; please inform me should I need to add any more.

Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe - yes, it needs more. You're making extraordinary claims which require a third party source to verify. See WP:RS for more info on what is expected. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Added referance to the RGS PA funding spreadsheet outlining how much has been spent on each specific item within the school. The source can be counted as reliable as the only people who have access to additions/edits are treasurers of the school and should further verification be required they may be contacted. Special:Contributions/Javindo (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference links

Hi there, thank you very much for the information. I understood what's going on now.

I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on this additional info for IPC page.

I'd like to add some reference links about the NZQA-accredited academic programmes and TESOL certificate we have:

• http://www.kiwiquals.govt.nz
• http://www.trinitycollege.co.uk/resource/?id=3479

I would have liked to point directly to the description of each programme but it seems the website applies session for every search result so I can not give a fix link to each of the programmes (any idea how?)

And I also want to add a line after the first opening line:

Located in Aokautere Drive, Palmerston North, IPC is a residential education provider.

The 'Aokautere' word will link to an existing page about Aokautere.

Thank you, International Pacific College (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One way to deal with the search link is to inform readers what search term to use (e.g., http://www.kiwiquals.govt.nz and search for "NZQA accredited"). Not ideal an ideal answer, but the only one I can think of off-hand. The link to Aokautere is much easier; simply type it as [[Aokautere]] and it shows up as a blue wikilinked Aokautere. For future questions, try placing the {{helpme}} template on your talk page and a far more experienced editor will be along to answer your questions, or at least point you in the right direction. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use that template. Oh I see, so it would be like:

http://www.kiwiquals.govt.nz and search for "Master of International Studies"

http://www.kiwiquals.govt.nz and search for "Postgraduate Diploma of International Studies" etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by International Pacific College (talk • contribs)

That's correct. As I said, not ideal but it gets the info across. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you International Pacific College (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)