User talk:Pip2andahalf

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]

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]

I certainly see your perspective. Either way you look at it, it wasn't that bad, because, as you say, it's all reversible. The warning message I left on your page was an automatically generated template. It can be more or less harsh than necessary for the situation. It also doesn't stress the point that I always assume good faith, and as I see, you were just trying to help out. Haha, so don't worry about it. What did you get warned for now? (I'll go have a look and probably know before you respond so... :P) Cheers, ~Pip 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Additionally: I see that your message here was reverted. That was a mistake on his part, and the warning should be removed from your talk page. ~Pip 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Yeah, Sorry about that. I thought he was a vandal. Since at that time, many user pages got blanked. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{ZOMG BBQ} 22:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, I totally understand ;) ~Pip 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I've given your userpage a bit of a breather from the attention it's been getting, but let me know if you'd rather not have it - or if you'd like it for longer. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 02:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind either way. I appreciate you looking out for me! :) Whatever you've done for now is fine. ~Pip 02:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Here to help. Bencherlite ^Talk 02:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a User: (my name) page, but I'd like to delete it because it shows up in google. Is this possible? It's User:Jonathan Chernick