User talk:Age Happens

Any advice for making revision edits for obvious vandalism would be appreciated.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took you long enough...

Took you long enough to revert... --67.68.58.246 (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the reversion, although I was about to do so. I merely added the warning to your user talk. You've since done a 3rd revision putting your vandalism back on the page and received an even stronger warning from another vandalism watcher. I expect that your editing on Wikipedia is about to be interrupted (blocked) for some time. Surely you can find some more constructive way to spend your time? Age Happens (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever slut !!!! ~ 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 70.191.219.227 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ~ 06:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philatino

It's now up for AfD if you've any thoughts. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philatino. Thanks, --Oscarthecat (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit

Posted an explanation of my revision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Extraneous_and_missing_solutions, and I'm going to re-post the change. The revision was constructive in that it removed an error from a page discussing ways to avoid that error. If you disagree, re-revert; no hard feelings. 68.42.7.184 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thank you for reverting the vandalism in my user page. Seeing your contributions to vandal-fighting, I suggest you apply for Rollback at WP:RFR since rollback helps you revert vandalism quickly and efficiently. Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WoT revert

I did explain my edit to the article before you reverted me and additionaly I stated my opinion on the discussion page. I didn't remove any material, in fact I reinserted material that Publicus removed. The name of the war War on terrorism has been droped that much is certain, but the conflict itself is still ongoing and a new name to the war has been given per references Overseas Contingency Operation. The war is still on, it just changed it's name.188.2.194.124 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioclasm revert

Your revert did not even allow me to finish my content. If you want to debate the meaning of biblioclasm do it there. 169.232.232.101 (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on a politically charged event is not the place to debate definitions of terms. Wikipedia links to itself and all uses of terms should conform to each other. You admitted yourself that this is cultural genocide, and it does not fit into the general and usual meaning of book burning which is ceremonial burning as a form of protest. I am not going to get into a revert war. I assume that your intellectual honesty will rule here, as opposed to the wish to mask cultural genocide with a word that is not generally understood not in the way that wikipedia uses it. I, btw, have no relation to Sri Lanka, etc. I was simply interested, and reading the article. There is no reason to define the term on that page nor use a term that requires definition in the lead of an article. 169.232.232.101 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason for the tags at the top of both the article itself and the talk page. Simply reading the article and deciding on your own to edit an article in dispute is not the proper course of action. I reverted your edits. You replaced them. You have not, as yet, followed the procedures for an article in final resolution of a dispute. You were the one who decided to edit the page in dispute and redefine terms and usages therein, after a casual reading. I did not define the term on the page. I did not make the page. I removed your inappropriate edits to a page in dispute. Intellectual honesty indeed. Have a nice day. Age Happens (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria College - Thanks

Hi, I was in the process of doing exactly the same thing to the article when you dealt with it. I noticed this morning that there were more problems than I had reverted last night (the million students was a good clue) but had to rush off to work without enough time to even tag it. Thanks for dealing with it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey i study in bahria college. i alot and what i wrote was true. but some of was edited by my friends that wasnt the real thing!!!