User talk:E Wing

This is E Wing's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, E Wing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Glossary
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 16:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

October 2005

Image Tagging Image:Wing-0 NeoBird.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Wing-0 NeoBird.JPG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Secret london 07:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 2005

Oh My Goddess!

I welcome you to join the ongoing article improvement drive. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

GS-9900 G-Falcon

Thanks for the expansion! Interesting that the GX, Airmaster, and Leopard kits can't dock with the G-Falcon. Magus Melchior 15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

License tagging for Image:SRW-OG box-art.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SRW-OG box-art.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Caesar (video game)

Hi. Why did you revert my reversion of deletion vandalism to Caesar (video game) by 67.163.2.230 in this edit? Would you please consider reversing your action? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and for joining the fight against vandalism (per my user talk page). I accept your apology. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hmm? —DerHexer (Talk) 11:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy tagging.

Hi there, I've been going through checking on the speedy delete list and saw you tagged Otherkin. I'm not sure if you checked the history, though it looks like it's a fringe subject that did have an article that had been previously vandalised, and had gone unnoticed. I've now put the document to an earlier version and removed the speedy tag. Cheers ^Khukri 15:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Why are you giving me a hard time about my talk page? I just got this connection and I really don't need alot of nonsense warnings on my talk page thanks. 76.111.250.140 (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as Rich Farmbrough said, it is not acceptable to delete/remove warnings from one's talk page. E Wing (talk)

It may not be acceptable but it surely isn't against wikipedia policy. 76.111.250.140 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is against Wikipedia policy to vandalize IP talk pages, whether or not you are editing from that particular IP address. — Satori Son 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Removing text

Thank you for your recent reversion to various edits of mine on the United States Talk page, and for your warning of removal of information from that page on my talk page. Please not that your reversion in fact removed material from the page as well. perhaps you should be more vigiliant in your future reversions. Thanks. 62.72.110.11 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I have recovered the lost material from the page. Thanks. E Wing 15:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you, you dealt with the matter in a calm, collected and civil manner, both resolving the matter as it should have been done, and acknowledging that you may have made a mistake. It is editors like yourself who, although perhaps underappreciated, keep Wikipedia afloat. So, thank you kindly. 62.72.110.11 15:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

for this GDallimore (Talk) 08:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) E Wing 11:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Liger by 82.150.99.2

This vandalism appears to have been done by 142.227.229.129 and was reverted by 82.150.99.2. Then 82.150.99.2 accidently undid the reversion so then redid it leaving the page clean (all within the space of 5 minutes).

I do not believe that 82.150.99.2 is guilty of vandalism, therefore should not have the notice on its talk page. 82.150.99.2 (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should talk to User:Fluri, since he/she made the warning, not me. E Wing 13:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I left a message for User:Fluri and removed the warning from my page. You replaced the warning so I left a message for you as well. 82.150.99.2 (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thanks for the revert of the crap on my page. Really appreciate it, as I don't get on much and can't always revert myself. Thanks again! Bouncehoper (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's my duty :-) E Wing 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page Vandalism

Cheers on the revert man! --Cody Pope (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you linked was from 17 December ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by User 208.127.154.159

Since 10 December 2007, the above user has been gutting the article on Arnold Murray. I reverted it but decided to leave it alone. This is why wikipedia has problems raising money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.185.73 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Careful with the vandalism button

Hi there! This edit, which you reverted with a Twinkle auto-comment characterizing it as "vandalism", appears to have been a good-faith edit, just done to the wrong page by mistake. Don't bite the newbies, and all. :) I assume this was just an oversight on your part. I see lots of anti-vandalism patrolling in your contribs. Keep up the good work! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VoABot II

Actually, I think Vandal Proof goofed because VoABot II and I edited at the same time. VP is usually great, but once in a while, it makes an odd glitch. Thanks for catching that and thanks for mentioning it to me. Doczilla (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy

Thanks for tidying up that anon talk page. I've protected it for a while and blocked for 6 months so hopefully no more trouble there for a bit. Keep up the good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV.

Hi, thanks for fighting vandals. I noticed you reported someone who had received a {{uw-vandalism4im}}: generally, it's not good to report users with only an only warning, because that's not assuming good faith. If you see someone like that, just go back to vandalism-3 or maybe 4 warning, instead of report them. Thanks! ^{If I said something wrong, sorry, it's really early, and I'm in kind of a rush...}· AndonicO ^Hail! 10:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrasone

Hi, my edit wasn't vandalism, I was reverting vandalism - a previous editor had reverted to a POV and poorly sourced version that acted as an advertisement for Ultrasone, written by a banned editor who would not allow any balance on the page. I reverted to the last good version, using the undo button. In future I will leave a note too. I was about to add note on the talk page also. Thanks --88.172.132.94 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted E Wing (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. Happy editing --88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, E Wing! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 14:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False revert: 71.2.4.205

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:71.62.4.205, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It appears that you have reverted previous contructive edits on Wikipedia (see above). Consider revising the way you edit. Calling something Vandalism is a serious thing in wikipedia. You mustn't use it lightly or without being quite sure of your facts. Please read WP:VANDAL - which explains precisely what is and what isn't vandalism - and how to handle these more dubious cases. It says:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. -- Remember, we are supposed to Assume Good Faith.
...significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, -- I think it was pretty clear why the removal happened when your read what was removed.
Do not use ...[the vandalism]... templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement. -- Using 'The V-word' is a serious matter, don't do it lightly!

--Niyant (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask permission

Please ask permission before editing my talk page. Your erroneous vandalism revert removed my reply to another editor. Please read WP:VAN to find out what vandalism really is. Thanks and have a nice day. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just In Time (business) article

I am slightly puzzled by your recent edit to the Just In Time (business) article. I am certainly not criticising, I just don't understand your comment on your recent edit. I certainly approve of the edit itself.

Here is what happened:

193.62.251.312 added a "kk" to the end of a line. Maybe vandalism, maybe just hitting the keyboard by mistake.
I removed it again.
82.2.91.1 deleted the entire "Effects" section.
You restored it again. But, you commented your restore with "Reverted 1 edit by 82.2.91.1 identified as vandalism to last revision by Maproom. using TW".

I didn't identify anything as vandalism. And you didn't remove the "kk". You restored something much more significant, which was nothing to do with me.

I guess I am bringing this up because I am worried that I might be the one who deleted the "Effects" section.

BTW, if you are good at handling vandalism, you might take a glance at Mongols, Timur, and Genghis Khan. This seems to be a field that attracts them (though they are all unvandalised at the time of writing). Maproom (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... After you removed the "kk" from the article, you're the last one who edited the article until User:82.2.91.1 deleted the entire "Effects" section, right? At the time I restored the entire section, I'm the last one to edit the page. The comment {automatically generated by the Twinkle script is "(Reverted 1 edit by 82.2.91.1 identified as vandalism to last revision by Maproom. using TW)" means I reverted the last edit before mine (section blanking by User:82.2.91.1) to your last version (after you deleted the "kk"). That means that the page before the blanking (your edit) was restored. As for that vandalism, the Twinkle script may generate custom edit summary but since deleting is/may also considered as vandalism, I used the "Vandalism" edit summary (the default one; maybe I'm just too lazy, sorry about that). As for the 3 articles, I'll have them under my watchlist. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It all makes sense to me now. And thanks for keeping an eye on Mongols etc.; and for the rest of your work, of course. Maproom (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday

from the Birthday Committee

Wishing E Wing a very happy birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake!

--Nadir D Steinmetz 13:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking user pages

Wikipedia policy explicitly permits users to blank their own talk pages. There is no requirement to archive. Undoing such blanking is, technically, vandalism. Please don't do it again. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not at all accurate. — Satori Son 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

vandalism by 71.162.58.225‎

thanks for knocking some sense into this newbie. I left a message on his page asking him/her to stop. I threatened to send the cyber police to his/her house. --Provodnik (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

As has been noted by multiple users, your habit of simply reverting recent changes, including the (perfectly allowable) blanking of one's own user page, is, itself, vandalism. This constitutes your last warning. 138.23.72.65 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the blanking of IP talk pages is not permitted. And reverting it is definitely not vandalism on E Wing's part. If you would like to have control over a user talk page, please register an account and log in. Thanks. — Satori Son 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satori Son said it all. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I have no wish to drink the Kool-Aid.71.9.8.150 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I understand that many people don't want to register for many reasons. But please don't harass our registered volunteers for keeping things tidy. — Satori Son 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - after some perusal of WP:Talk and USER PAGES, I see no mention whatsoever of any policy difference relative to IP users. Perhaps you can direct me to where in policy it says they can't blank their user page. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User != IP. Issue closed. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no such policy. Just your wishful thinking, counter to Wikipendia's established policies and guidelines which recognize anonymous IP users. Thank you for the clarification, though I doubt it's what you intended. Original point stands, BTW, E Wing: before reverting edits, particularly peoples' actions on their own user pages, I suggest you check to see whether the action violates any policy. To do otherwise is, itself, contrary to policy: [[1]] and [[2]] - "On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others." Thanks. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isssue closed. IP are not users, are IP. Full stop. IPs are not entitled to remove warnings from their talk page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please direct me to the policy page which declares IP users are not users and not entitled to the same rights as other users. It would seem any such policy would be in direct conflict with the stated aims of WP, and many other guides and policies, but I'm fully willing to be educated if I'm wrong. Link please, instead of simple assertion? 138.23.246.0 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told by two different Wikipedia administrators that your behavior is inappropriate. Continuing to post "warnings" on users' talk pages is harassment and is only going to get you blocked. You have been warned. — Satori Son 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, indeed, been told my behavior is "inappropriate." I have asked for clarification of precisely what policy or guideline I am violating. I do not see how I can avoid violating policies in the future if I don't know what they are. Again, I'm only seeking information here. My understanding has always been that IP users are legitimate and welcome contributors to the project. As such, it was my understanding that I could remove harassing false 'warnings' related to an edit conflict (now long resolved). When E-Wing reverted that change, my understanding was that it was he who violated policy, and I provided links to same. Can you please show me what you think i've violated? 138.23.246.0 (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... as you have been told ad nauseam, the guideline you cite does not apply to IP pages. Exactly how am I supposed to prove a negative? But as far as your blockable behavior of giving warnings after you were told not to, see WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, and WP:POINT.

Your "drinking the Kool-Aid" comment shows exactly how much respect you have for us and our guidelines, and I have grown weary of repeating myself. — Satori Son 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. I recognize the addictive nature of wikipedia editing, and one way I keep my own habit in check is by refraining from registering. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge and follow policies. I still do not understand. Where on that guideline does it say IP users are excluded or are somehow 'not' users? Every guideline I've seen claims just the opposite (examples:Wikipedia has no hierarchy with respect to IP users [[3]]). I'm not being obtuse...I'm actually in quite some shock about what you claim is an official policy which seems counter to the whole project. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CATI

Hi there, if you are interested in supporting the Coalition Against Tagalog Imperialism please add {{User:Arikasikis/Userbox/CATI}} . The logo would look like User:Arikasikis/Userbox/ CATI

Arikasikis (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I speak in Filipino. Hehehe. E Wing (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I'm just curious a. why you wrote on my talk page, and b. how did you even know about? and finally c. what do you get from editing vandalism on obscure ip adresses talk pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.63.22 (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right on what's your damage editing ip address talk pages? don't you have better things to edit? 203.129.50.27 (talk) 12:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have better things on Wikipedia to edit. And that includes reverting vandalism and restoring pages blanked by an IP user. E Wing (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:122.106.69.62, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thanks for trying to help, but please don't edit other's comments. What you changed actually made the sentence not make sense. Pump me up 05:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just noticed now. Thanks for the correction and for the warning, I'll try to be more carefull. :-) E Wing (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2008

Thanks!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for reverting my recent vandalism! :-) --76.84.190.173 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]