User talk:Pip2andahalf

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Pip2andahalf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Demonoid. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gary King (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I never understood why he left me this message... Maybe he didn't realize I've been a member for almost 3 years at the time xD He never replied to the message I left him either hehe Pip (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Facebook revision

The new layout has already been covered in the article, and the opposition group is highly unimportant unless discussed in reliable sources. GlassCobra 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for coming off harshly above. You are a longstanding member and I should have spoken to you as such. Keep up the good work. :) GlassCobra 23:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars 'R' U

		The Hidden Page Barnstar
		I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha thanks TREKphiler xD Pip (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you deserve is an open question. =p TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 08:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That's OK, I own stock in AOL. ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on it on somebody's page (wish I could recall who...) & thought it was kind of a neat idea. I had no idea I'd get so many hits... I originally had a message more like WP's (if you noticed iNkubusse suggesting it), but I got word that's frowned on. One more guideline I didn't know about. *sigh* TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad you liked it. Ta. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 09:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--If you got the joke, & aren't offended (I wasn't so sure it was as funny to you as to me...), go ahead & restore it from the page history, if you want. Or not. And yeh, I'm glad you got it. (My sense of humor is a bit weird...) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatevever works. Thanks. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 21:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joaum

Hi!

Thank you for your advice. I'm tryng to log with the "Joaum" username, but, until now, nothing had happened. As you have told, the username is valid. Is strange that I can log. I always use the same password to avoid this tipe of problems. Well, I'll keep tryng.

Once more, thank you.

(Sorry about my poor english, is not my native) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.169.221 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Glad you like some of the userboxes. Here's a whole list of them you can use: Userboxes Template -- MF14 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

pure chance (: jimfbleak (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just as well you said that, he'd removed the tag jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "hold on" just said that Wikipedia has plenty of space, give him a chance, so I've deleted and salted this time jimfbleak (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a fully protected page that can only be created or edited by admins unless the protection is removed. Just to clarify, there is an intermediate level (semi-protection) which bars only unregistered and new editors. This tends to be used on heavily vandalised pages jimfbleak (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have...

...got a new message ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you request to speedily delete my article?

I have just started the article, and I know it's short, but I didn't even have a chance to expand it before the tag was placed on it. What do I need to add? I will add it. Also, please make sure it is not deleted immediately. -- IRP (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to this on the respective article's talk page. Cheers, Pip (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK now? Please see these links

Talk:VORTEX2

VORTEX2

-- IRP (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's best we discuss this on the article's talk page. Pip (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here to notify you because it took you a while to respond. Meanwhile, I expanded the introductory paragraph. -- IRP (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torx (game)

Just a friendly note on Torx (game). I declined your speedy deletion request because the article (even when you made the request) did not meet the requirements of G1 patent nonsense. If you still think the article needs to be deleted, I'd suggest taking it to AfD. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. I actually was kinda on autopilot, since that user had been posting streams of spam up, and so I got a bit hasty when I saw yet another article by him... I removed the tag, but you were probably just too quick and efficient :P either way, he created another bogus page and I believe he was blocked. Either way, the history is pretty clear in his talk. Thanks again! Cheers Pip (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote-Free TV

I see you speedily deleted the article I created. Could you clarify on what was missing? I had thought I had enough information necessary for a minute-old stub.--Armyable (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it for deletion because there was no distinguishable context, hence I could not determine the subject or notability and/ or usefulness of the article. I did so within Wikipedia's Criteria for Speedy Deletion, specifically Criterion A1. Pip (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mynyddawg Mwynfawr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mynyddawg_Mwynfawr

what you talkin bout issues? That's a good f'n article! Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely did not mark this article for speedy deletion, as is apparent on the article's page. I do not know why you received such notification on your page - it must have been a malfunction on part of the tool that I use to work on Wikipedia. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this caused. Pip (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem. happy editting. Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You as well! Pip (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome? I don't remember why you're thanking me haha Pip (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bumvertising

Hi. I'd tend to agree that the Bumvertising article feels very fiddly. It troubled me in the Homelessness article and in its own right. I've tried to edit it in and out in bits but was uncertain how to approach the larger issue. It has gotten Seattle press, apparently. But of the oddest sort. I don't ever hear anyone talking about its being humanistic or philanthropic although it purports to be, which is really stretching it, in my gut. In fact, no serious person helping the homeless seems to talk about it or think it's actually appropriate as far as I know. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, although it received press, I don't think it received press because it's humanitarian or socially accepted in any way. Just because something received press doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia And it's highly disrespectful, if you ask me. Nonetheless, it seems as though it has maintained it's place in Wikipedia despite that. I wouldn't think it would necessarily be bad to be bold and at least nominate it for deletion to get discussion going on it. What do you think? Thanks for responding... Maybe we should keep this discussion on the talk page of the article though. (We can just copy paste this if you agree) Pip (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pip. Thanks for your note. Well, I think "bumvertising" is a messy and sloppy realisation of charitable behaviour. It really doesn't help the homeless, in my opinion. It has maintained its place in Wikipedia and the article on Homelessness because similar practices seem to have done in Dickens' time with sandwich boards and people walking around London wearing them. But it's an unpleasent and uncomfortable charitable act -- which actually is not charitable at all morally. Article for deletion ? Well, it does smell of someone's shameless self-promotion of the practice in that it's in Wikipedia already ... people have tried to take it out I think. I don't think it's a real helping item but exploitational of the downtrodden. I actually would prefer it were not in Wikipedia but I can't make a strong enough case to myself to cause its deletion unless the WP community feels similarly. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's well said, and agree entirely. I would almost flag it CSD:G11, Blatant Advertising... If you look at the history of the "article" and the way it's written, it looks like something I would flag that way if it showed up on New Pages while I was on patrol, regardless of it's generally unencyclopedic content. Then if you move on to the nature of the topic, again independently from it's rather offensive side, it's also something I would consider for CSD: A7, non notable organization. If, since CSD: A7 is a lower standard than Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by Wikipedia:Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." That's how I'd go about making the argument. Pip (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pip. Thanks for your kindest reply. I am in agreement with you. Perhaps it should be put up for discussion before a deletion. However, in a rather oblique moralistic way, since the practice and exploitation goes back to Dickens' time, a purpose might be served to leave it in the article to show how business try to exploit the poor and afflicated and downtrodden - as a cautionary tale. I'll defer to your good judgement on this but keep me up to date and let me know if you need my help. Bests ever and many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response to my original query as well. :) (I love the cool people I've been "meeting" and talking to since I've gotten more into Wikipedia. xD Awesome. Anyway - I think it'd be worth a proposed deletion, that way it'll spark discussion. There's a lot less discussion than I would have expected on the article. We'll see. I think about it, and I'll definitely keep you updated. :) Pip (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(exdent) Excellent, Pip ! It's my great pleasure as well for the interaction. It does seem like a fiddly item to insert in the poor battered article on Homelessness (since we are all getting rid of constant vandalism which might say something implicitly about people's feelings on the sad plight of homeless and poor people). Let alone to do in reality with Bumvertising. But it's historically precedented. One is reminded of Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" -- "Are there no workhouses?". Yeah. Good thing the story ended on a different note. Please keep me updated. Bests. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

I have to ask you, why did you revert me here? I asked on the talk page about removing the un-cited sections, was told to get rid of information without sources, and so I went ahead and cut out a large (and libelous) section, to be rebuilt later with well sourced references. Please undo your change, that you labeled "vandalism." Thank you, Will 01:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, sorry about that. I was going full speed and didn't have a look at the talk page. When skimming the selection, it didn't look like material that was bad for any reason. I apologize. I have reverted my edit. Thanks for mesaging me. Pip (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there a better place to leave a note so this doesn't happen again in the future (for those that watch for vandalism)? Will 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this particular article? Well, if you developed the article more, it should be fine. If you still feel as though you want to just mention it, you should go to the article's talk page and add something there, along the lines of "This was deleted before, it was suggested I improve it before publishing, then trying again. I'm not affiliated with the group, and I'm not writing this as an advertisement." You can also feel free to say it was me who suggested you publish it again. An easy way to do so would be add this: [[User:Pip2andahalf|whatever display text you want goes here]] Cheers! Pip (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT AGAIN!

The article now has a proposed deletion tag, placed on it by User:Orangemike. Look at this -- IRP ☎ 02:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do? -- IRP ☎ 02:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not going to lie, I definitely am going to have to agree with the idea that the information contained in VORTEX2 could be consolidated into VORTEX. I posted a similar message on the talk page. The only thing you can do it discuss the deletion on the talk page. Just try to present a good argument - the way you'll get a strong argument is to study up a bit on Wikipedia's policies and such so that you can defend your article against what the other editors will be attacking it on. If all else fails, you could take the content of VORTEX2 and add it to VORTEX, converting VORTEX into a comprehensive article covering the information on both projects, as I suggested previously. I think that's probably going to be your best bet as far as the life of the content... Pip (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will discuss it on his talk page. Also, a better way to let me know that I have new messages on your talk page is to create a new section on my talk page, and add: {{newmessages|User talk:Pip2andahalf}} -- IRP ☎ 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, maybe mention it on his talk page, then move the discussion to the article's talk page - I think it's best to have these discussions on the talk pages of the articles themselves. And thanks for the template - that's handy! Cheers Pip (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, and you're welcome for the template. -- IRP ☎ 18:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notice

I have merged VORTEX and VORTEX2 into VORTEX projects. -- IRP ☎ 15:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! It looks great!! Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, I've been really busy with school. ~Pip 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the compliment about my merge. -- IRP ☎ 21:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Nash

Hey fuck off with your bs comments fuck head!! I know my shit, she was born in Dublin...so fuck off and quit changing my shit!! Fucking studenty waster

Hello sir. Please check your sources first. According to this biography, Kate Nash was born in London: http://www.absoluteradio.co.uk/music/artists/kate_nash/biography/ ~Pip 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

You told me my comment on the blackpool talk page was vandalistic. I thought that was where I was meant to argue my case!? How do I discuss an issue with the person who didn't want me to include an external link? I clearly haven't grasped how wikipedia works. Apologies.

I, on accident, reverted your message on Tangerines' talk page. I fixed my mistake by replacing your message. I must have missed the removal of the notification on your personal talk page. Furthermore, I originally would have agreed with Tangerines' warning, but I removed my notifications to you as well to that effect - I'm sorry for the confusion. I absolutely support your contesting the removal of your links. To be honest, it looked like spam to me as well, but once I looked into it i realised you were simply adding highly similar, although pertinent, links. I will argue your case if you need me to. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. ~Pip 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I right in thinking that I did actually leave my comment in the right place? Or did I leave the right comment in the wrong place? The website I attempted to link to has video tours relevant to lots of wikipedia pages and stubbs. I was going to link to most of them because I thought the video tours would always be informative to readers who have a general interest in finding out about a given location. Is the quantity of proposed links likely to be what offended people and made them regard my editing as spam? Finally, if you do agree that the video tours are useful to wikipedia readers I'd love for you to help me argue my case. Bastywebb (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the comment you left on Tangerines' talk page was fine, I just accidentally removed it by pushing the wrong button. I'd say it was good to talk to him, since he was the last to give you a warning regarding the links you were posting, I believe. (That is, if you don't count my warning, which I have since removed.) I think what made it look like spam (at least to me) was in my hast I thought it was all the same link - I missed that each one was pertinent to the article in question in the name of the file for the video tour. This was clearly a mistake on my part. I would say that video tours of cities in question is probably something worthy of being in the external links list, but maybe others would disagree. It's certainly something worth discussing. I most definitely see you as trying to contribute to Wikipedia, not vandalize it, so I'll support you on that front for sure. Also, I combined these sections, as there isn't really any need for a new section for the same discussion. ~Pip 23:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I just read the responses to your question on Tangerines' page, and definitely see where your activity would constitute spam, according to Wikipedia's policies. Although, I think it certainly falls within the idea of assuming good faith in that you were just trying to help. ~Pip 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes having read the guidelines I can see why it was considered spam too. Should I just stop there then? Or is there some way I can get a general consensus on the matter? One way of making it a bit less spammy might be to link to pages on the site which have less non-video information e.g. http://www.coastlineuncut.com/england-coast-video-tours.php?locid=6&newsearch=true which is basically just a map and a video.

Excuse my barging in uninvited, just to clarify that I have explained further on Bastywebbs talk page, however it is not a matter of anyone being "offended", I certainly haven't been offended at all and I am more than happy to discuss it, which is why I've replied on your (Bastywebb) discussion page together with a (belated) welcome message. I have assumed good faith throughout, hence my comments about it being great that is clearly Bastywebb wanting to contribute. However, regardless of that, when an editors sole contribution is to add a host of external links and to add no content it can be seen as adding spamlinks. I applaud anyone for wanting to better wikipedia, however those improvements come by adding content and not just links to external websites. Have fun.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice High School

Can Eunice High School get deleted until I am ready to work on it?

Absolutely. If you blank the page, it'll flag the article to us as to say "author blanked page," which constitutes consent/ request for page deletion. I'd be happy to throw that tag on it for you, once you blank the page. Thanks for asking. Happy editing! ~Pip 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since high schools are all inherently notable, rather than blank and delete, I fleshed it out a bit myself from the most basic of sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PIP: Could you please tell Orange Mike to stop working on my page for me and what is up with all the warnings? I don't understand the new vandalism violation you put. Orange has been messing with my Wiki.

I'm not going to lie, I don't remember giving you that warning. I think I may have sent it on accident. I have removed it. I don't know what OrangeMike is doing on your page but I'm sure confronting him about it either on your talk page or on his talk page will fix the problem. He's a reasonable inndividual. :) Cheers ~Pip 22:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now somebody else is threatening to remove my edit privs. This is so confusing and annoying.

I just looked at the history and I see what's going on. First of all, when you blank the page, as the originator of the page, that's akin to asking for it to be deleted. Secondly, now that the page has been around long enough, when you blank the page, it most definitely looks like vandalism. Another issue that comes into play here is what I think someone wrote on your user talk page about ownership, and how no one person owns an article, no matter if they started it or how much work they put into it. What i suggest is letting it alone how it is, and making the changes you want to make to the article on your computer in a word processor, then copy and pasting that up when it's ready. Another way to do this is to create user sub pages that become the article until it's ready. you can see a simple example of this on my user page. I hope I helped a bit... Happy editing! ~Pip 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so annyoed I just want out of this. Sorry to sound like this but I must say you were the nicest of all editors/admins.

I'm so sorry you feel that way. I want you to be able to enjoy using and contributing to Wikipedia. think about just taking a break for a day or two, they'll all forget about this, you can start contributing to other articles, etc. Whatever happens, It'd be nice to see you stick around. And thanks - I make mistakes... Definitely more than some, and I'll admit that... But I'm just trying to help out. It's easy to get going so fast though. If there's anything else I can do for you, just holler. ~Pip 22:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you can- Tell these people to chill lol. They say I cannot ask for a deletion because it belongs to Wikipedia. When there is a requested deletion tag?

well, from what i can tell the deletion tags were placed there in the article's very beginnings, as someone described on your talk page. I don't think it's going to be deleted now. Why do you want it deleted? Maybe we can figure out what to do if we look at this from a different perspective. I want to understand your thinking. ~Pip 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is the deal- I wasn't familiar with anything about Wiki. Therefore until I learn, I just think it be better that I practice. But supposedly Orange has tried doing the article and I find that rude and disrespectful even though he's trying to help. I am not ready to write on Wiki plain and simple. And all of these people think I'm stupid. Edit: I REQUESTED DELETION WHEN I FIRST STARTED IT BEFORE THE EDITOR CONTRIBUTION

I understand. Unfortunately, the article has survivied long enough that it is highly unlikely that it will be considered for deletion, regardless of the turn of events. I'm sorry you feel as though everyone is being mean and/ or rude to you. I think they're just following protocol. The easiest thing for you to do would be to try and just forget about the Eunice High School article, and move on to new things. Of course contribute to it, but I think you have to realize that this is a teamwork-based project, and once you create an article, and I mean the second you create that article, it becomes fair game for anyone to edit. You just need to assume good faith: Meaning assume everyone is here to help, not hinder. Then, you can enjoy editing with your fellow editors, not against them. ~Pip 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case why should I edit it? Everybody's doing it for me!

Haha, I can see where your coming from - it seems weird, doesn't it? Well, because it's a cool thing, how you can start something, and it becomes wonderful out of whatever you did for it and others as well. I think this is a cool example. Check out this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anagnorisis&oldid=14197337 The revision that this links to is the first version of the article ever. I ctarted it, and it was basically a sentence. Now, check out the history of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anagnorisis&limit=500&action=history And here's the coolest part of all! Check out the current page! Isn't that cool? that's what I like about it. so, maybe once you get over the idea that it's your article, than you can enjoy happily contributing in all the ways you feel like. Try this: Look around on Wikipedia and find something you have a lot of books about. read the article and see if there's any missing information. If there is

add it in!! then you've contributed to an article that you didn't create... It's how the whole Wiki project works out. Did that help? ~Pip 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I am starting to get the point. Lol. Somebody else is talking to me about the whole thing on my talk page.

Btw: You gonna come to my page now and then til I'm comfortable? Shark

Sure. I'll add your talk and user pages to my watch list. And if you ever need anything, fee free to drop me a note! ~Pip 23:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My New BFF Edits are not unconstructive.

Hi there, I don't mean to sound rude, but I have spent about an hour and a half this evening altering the page for Paris Hilton's My New BFF so that it can be more detailed and accurate. I logged on just now to find that my hard work had been removed. My edits to the page were constructive and I ask that they please not be reverted. Thank you...

vandalism my ass

to bad for you this is a free information page, and vandalism doesn't mean jack on Wikipedia. you can't just throw around tort terms like that especially when you don't know what they mean. Its Wikipedia, not Britannica.

Your revert on Taxandria (film)

Why did you revert the article to a stub after I'd added production background informations, notable actors, a more detailed plot description (removing some errors regarding the plot the article originally had), and listed the awards the film had won or was nominated for? Those are all bare minimum standards for any movie article on Wikipedia, so it's no use calling it "unconstructive".

Also, it's no use "welcoming" me or pointing me to the sandbox, as I've been active on Wikipedia pretty much daily since 2003 under a different account. --77.184.15.29 (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'm not sure why I thought that was vandalism in any way. I see you've already reverted my edit. I apologize for that. ~Pip 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I know I often make many edits because only after reading and re-reading I remember another substantial fact to add, but I think that's no sufficient reason to revert. --77.184.15.29 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me - I do the same thing when I'm working one something. I am just slow sometimes and need to publish to find things. I think I was just going to fast and didn't read enough of your addition. Either way, thanks for understanding. ~Pip 05:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reverting my edits

Yo man whats the deal with reverting my w&m edits. Its not vandalism, it is ratified by us news and world reports.

In that case, please provide a citation to support this. It will otherwise, I almost guarantee you, be regarded as a biased statement based upon a point of view by anyone who sees it. Thank you, ~Pip 05:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You live over 500 miles from here! Why are you reverting facts? Dude, you don't even attend or work at this school. So why are you editing the article? Please do not edit articles taht you have NO personal knowledge about. Thank you 71.108.249.156 (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a new section... I think you're missing the point. Here on Wikipedia, the information is supposed to reflect fact only, and as such, things people add must be supported by independant third parties. Just because you go to the school doesn't mean you are the expert on the subject. We appreciate you trying to help, but I'm just saying that that is going to be continually removed until you back it up with support. And I don't just mean I'm going to keep removing it. I'm going to go to bed soon, and it's going to be removed by someone else, or whatever. I'm not trying to be mean. All I mean is that if you truly believe that it belongs there, do the research, find the info, cite it inline with the words, and it'll stay there, since it will be properly supported fact in an encyclopedia article. Thanks, happy editing. ~Pip 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/items/3705

USNews & World rates it as "most selective."

Great! Now add that properly as a citation/ reference in the article and you're good to go! ~Pip 05:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do citations, could you do it?

I'd be happy to, sure. I'll also leave you a message on your talk page that will give you some links to articles that will help you learn more about how to edit Wikipedia. Someday, maybe you'll write an article that become featured eventually! :) ~Pip 06:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting (Foonoted and Explained) Edits without Any Explanation of Your Own

Please do not revert my footnoted edits that include an explanation for the edits without full explanation. Do you have alternate sources that contradict the footnote? Do you understand the importance of the special relationship between the Regent and the General? What have you read on the subject of the secret peace negotiations?Werchovsky (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referencing. Sorry. ~Pip 06:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made the edit at 05:54. You can check your revision history.Werchovsky (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. Not to be rude, but I've made over a thousand edits just today... Would you remember each one? Even less likely would you go through your reversion history to find a specific one. Now, on the other side of things: I'm sorry I edited your article that you were making constructive edits to. I was in haste, and I made a mistake. My apologies. Happy editing! ~Pip 07:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micachu

This entry is pretty rough, and I've been working on polishing it up a bit, little by little. Not sure why my edits were reverted, but I wanted to make it clear that they were in no way vandalism. I'll start building references as I go along, but as the existing article still has none, I hope there can be some good faith in the meantime.

Absolutely. Sorry it didn't seem like I was not assuming good faith. Happy editing! ~Pip 06:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes I've made

Ok so, I change Kevin Uribe's flag to a Columbian flag (when he IS Columbian), but you allowed other flags which are incorrect to go unedited. I'm getting the feeling that you ARE Kevin Uribe. Check Moe Assad and Jared Reyes. Good work man.

Sorry about that. I wasn't particularly discriminating against your change in particular - it looked like, from my pov (yes, my mistake) like the main flag for the city of SF. The only reason other flags weren't changed is they weren't being modified at the time. Again, sorry about the mistake. ~Pip 07:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool. I see where you're coming from and I see why you did what you did. Didn't mean to come off sounding so angry. I'm glad you understand.

Also, Mike "Paradox" wants a Polish flag (I discussed this with him). Do you know the code for Poland?

It's all good. I know very well how frustrating it can be when you get your good faith edits reverted. I am, like you, here to make Wikipedia better... I'm pretty new at using Huggle though, which is why I'll be the first to admit it if I made a big mistake... I've made over 1,000 edits just today... So it's pretty crazy :) I'm learning. So thanks for understanding. Cheers! Also, I do not know it of the top of my head besides I'd try POL, but I think there is a list somewhere. I'll go investiagate. ~Pip 07:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Graziano

1) Those were CONSTRUCTIVE edits 2) They were CITED with good sources

You are wrong.

4.240.78.44 (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for my reversions to your obviously beneficial edits. I made a mistake, and I apologize sincerely. Thanks, happy editing! ~Pip 10:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann McLaughlin

Seems there is history on you accusing people of vandalism when they are adding information. According to an article in "Finanical Management" (CIMA's membership publication) on connected directors to the two US political parties, she was the chair of the President's Commision on Aviation Security & Terrorism. Perhap a request to cite the source would have been more appropriate. The article was called Capitol Gains by a Jorg Rocholl.

You're right, and I'm working on that. Thanks for the message. Happy editing! ~Pip 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful about warnings

Hi! You should really be more careful when warning people, this edit is hardly vandalism (although the header the user chose was a bit off-style) but you still gave him a Level 2 warning. Have a good day! Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate the feedback, and recognize that I need to be a bit more careful in my revisions. Cheers! ~Pip 20:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol

Ok. 98.226.32.129 (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks! :) ~Pip 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to reply to your message

Why unconstructive? you took my advice didn't you?190.55.189.248 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A better way to fix said sentence would have been to fix the grammar of it yourself. I reverted your edit as vandalism because, technically, it was. if discussion of an article should take place, you should do so on the article's talk page, instead of removing information from the article to place a comment on the article's main page. Of course you were just trying to help out, so thank you!! Happy editing! ~Pip 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

but tell me, wouldn't you rather have someone make a mistake known in an innapropiate way that is easily reverted than not noticing the mistake at all? let's suppose my computer won't allow me to use talk pages or correct the errors by myself but it does allow me to comment on them in a place I shouldn't (yeah, right). What would your advice be? (sorry, when I tried to edit the post above to add my reply I got another vandalism warning) 190.55.189.248 (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]