Jump to content

User talk:EEMIV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.185.201.26 (talk) at 16:28, 29 May 2010 (→‎Please be careful...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:EEMIV/activetalkpageheader

afd

you were involved in a afd about this article before, so you might wanna read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (2nd nomination) thanks Starwarsdeathstar (talk) 4:54 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Merry Christmas

  • Righto. Thanks. I'm overdue for my bi-annual blow-up at A Nobody. I think it's purged, for the time being. If I'd let this stand, I suppose a wikiquette thingy might've been okay. Anyhow, moving on. Thanks again. --EEMIV (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahm Kota

After his edit summaries and his vandalism of your user page and mine, I posted it to AN/I. [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I think he's gone away, at least for the time being, and have removed ANI from my watchlist. Please give a holler if anything else interesting crops up in that ANI block, or if General Kota appears again. --EEMIV (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will do. For the record, I don't buy the drunk excuse. I suspect he has good intentions, just doesn't understand things like proper referencing and overlinking and takes it personally when corrected. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scatology

Your language at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manon Batiste (2nd nomination) is offensive. Please rephrase it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have a lot of "language" on that page, and I'm not going to rake through it to find whatever nugget is bothersome. If you're referring specifically to the "annoying mimicry" comment to A Nobody: it's stale. --EEMIV (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of FTL (Battlestar Galactica)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is FTL (Battlestar Galactica). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTL (Battlestar Galactica) (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed

Sorry about that, old habit. Sometimes when there's an article I want to get to from the article i'm reading, but I don't want to refresh the browser, I add a link in. With that one, there's probably a link somewhere for the ultimate sith edition, I just got sidetracked. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copying during AfD

Hi. You copied content from Jennifer Mui while WP:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mui was in progress. Please don't do this – see WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion and the related discussion WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD. If you copy content between articles, please include the articles' names in the edit summary per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. I supplied the required information. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the copied content more carefully, and it can be attributed in an edit summary since only A Nobody and you edited it before it was moved. I have done so. Flatscan (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge + GDFL

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me, I have been away from AFD for some time now and I have seen the term Merge + GDFL crop up a bit. Could you explain this to me please and help me understand this comment? [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, the general notion is that under GFDL, we need to maintain attribution/development history of our content. If 18 people work on one sentence in article 1, and that sentence gets merged into article 2, we need to keep the edit history of article 1 because the development/attribution history of that sentence is there. That's the gist of it.
That's also a simplified version, and I know A Nobody in particular has been known to overeagerly whip out the "keep per GFDL; it's illegal if we delete something" line, and a few more-experienced editors have pointed out there are Other Ways of maintaining edit history that make the "keep per GFDL line" subject to a few qualifications or caveats. I'm really not sure about the nuances.
The great irony is that I actually merged some content from this under-AfD article mid-AfD (see note above), and mid-AfD merges are a big no-no. Oops.
I think I've responded to your question as best I can; not sure if it's an actual answer. There's a bit more on it at WP:MAD, and there might be some other WP: links from there that focus on it more (WP:GFDL?). --EEMIV (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, I think I get it, I'll read up on it. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EEMIV's information is pretty correct, except that Wikipedia is now dual CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensed. WP:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. Flatscan (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See:

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SW:TFU2

Please meet at the dicussion page for Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P dump (talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Force Unleashed & Ultimate Sith Edition

Check discussion page for the force unleashed. Then we should more so include it into the force unleashed article. User:P dump|P dump]] (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix this?

The AFD link at Double or Nothing (2009 film) leads to a different and closed AFD. I was unable to find an AFD discussion for this film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message with the closing admin, asking him to address it. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess it was a leftover from a multiple nomination. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I saw that you undid my edits on the article The Offspring. Don't take it personal, but do you follow my contributes and check my edits? --P dump (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When your Star Wars-related edits crop up on my watchlist, I tend to look at your other recent contributions, too -- incomplete sentences and lapses in style, WP:RS/WP:OR and WP:NFCC requirements in one article tend to show up elsewhere, too. --EEMIV (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're like my own personal moderator. Just be reasonable please.--P dump (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for Wiki co-op

It has recently come to my attention that the Star Wars: Battlefront page has multiple, unignoreable wiki format violations and currently is in need of extreme reconditioning. The page for Star Wars: Battlefront II is not beyond reproach, but is not in any real current violation of wiki format. I bring these pages to your attention in light of the fact of your knowlege of wiki rules and regulations. Thanks for any help you can give myself and the wiki/Star Wars community.--P dump (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa

Uh, I just noticed that I broke a massive string of edits to Boba Fett with my little tweak. Fantastic work. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's been keeping me sane while proctoring exams. :-] --EEMIV (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, whatever floats your boat. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much floatation as ballast against the weight of boredom. I got to hand students a passage and give them a pat on the head once every 20 minutes; otherwise, just waiting outside their assessor's room. Tick. Tock. --EEMIV (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

podracing

podracing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.251.159 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Jediism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jediism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jediism. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hethrir

Sorry about reverting your redirecting of Hethrir to The Crystal Star the other day. I did not realize until checking my contributions just now that it hadn't been Hetrir's article on Wookieepedia, through which I was browsing through at the same time as Wikipedia, the one I had edited. --Ace ETP (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redshirts

Hi there, just wanted to say thank you for your support on the Redshirts issue. Very frustrating to have removal of -unsourced- (whether it's notable or not notwithstanding) material undone, especially when the section's been tagged at this point. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Do not use rollback in content disputes, like you've been doing on Template:Star Wars. Doing so is grounds for having your rollback and/or Twinkle access removed. --Carnildo (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent changes by a single user to content for which the local consensus is to keep it is disruptive. I'm sure I've been using the script correctly. But anyway, thanks. --EEMIV (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "editing against consensus" on the list of things considered vandalism. --[[User:Carni

ldo|Carnildo]] (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a content dispute. The next time I see you use rollback in a content dispute, I'll revoke it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where it says the middle Twinkle Rollback button isn't appropriate to use when restoring local consensus for article content. --EEMIV (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the one you've been using. --Carnildo (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save for one edit several days ago -- when I did use the Rollback link -- this is EXACTLY the tool I use for all vandalism reversion AND toe-just-short-of-3RR :-) content reversion: bold, blue, middle button that read "rollback" and brings up the user's talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Oh, yeah, never mind -- yeah, I used the vandalism button. He's being disruptive on that page. It's a pain in the ass; I clicked it out of frustration. If you want a "sorrrrrrrry" for an errant click amid dozens of other totally above-board uses, then I offer it, although with only marginal sincerity. The notion of removing a long-standing editor's rollback use, with a long history of using it correctly but a few slips with a tendentious editor (who fails to offer sincere talk-page discussion, removes appropriate content, and occasionally slips into IP editing), is frankly stupid. You don't have much edit activity recently -- don't you have something better to do on Wikipedia? --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like a genuine content dispute: between the recent history of the template and the talk page, it looks like there are about five people in favor of keeping the link, and about four people in favor of removing it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only folks who've removed the link in the last month or two are a) a registered editor and some IP addresses that coincidentally share the former's interest in this template and the Afghan war and b) a block-evading sock. There are a few extra voices on the talk page who've challenged the link's presence, but they haven't removed the link (or even edited the template in many months, if at all). The consensus among non-obnoxious editors is that the content is appropriate -- or, at least, that there is a rationale for maintaining it. There isn't any real content dispute; it's a "dispute" over whether an annoying editor will take a hint at go away. --EEMIV (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

podracing

hows the podracing going these days —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.251.159 (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in reference to Klingon page dispute

I am familiar with the OR policy that you are citing, but I think that you are mis-using it, albeit with obvious good intention. Your explicitly stated issue is with my word "implied," but I do not use the word to connote an interpretation on my part, and I wonder if you would still dispute the edit if I hadn't used that word. At worst, my use of the word "implied" was a poor choice of diction, but it does not change the objective nature of the information I'm citing. My statement in the original edit I made is supported by both visuals and dialogue in the episode I've cited. Minaker (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a secondary source that substantiates your interpretation. --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

death star

why did you revert? the subject is a ball, and it is fictional, hence membership of category> fictional balls is only logical. maybe you can enlighten me. be seeing you, - riffic (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a "ball" is generally as a play-thing. Category:Fictional spheres or Category:Fictional round things would be more apt. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My IP's mother is a fish

NO MY EDIT WAS CONSTRUCTIVE HOW DARE YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.238.67 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]



The above is not in any way related to the below... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.123.79 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page on Klingons, specifically

15:24, 28 February 2010 EEMIV (talk | contribs) (32,249 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 75.183.123.79. (TW)) (undo),

Thank you for seeing that it was a good faith effort, as have been all of my contributions to date, but in that case why summarily revert it? It does rather discourage volunteerism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.123.79 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sources

Hi, much as I agree with your edits on the articles created by User:SerdechnyG, I don't think that it is correct to remove sources that are not in English. The "en WP" is worldwide and although articles have to be in English, sources can be in any language. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't sources I removed, but rather a laundry list of [already dubious] Further reading suggestions. --EEMIV (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, so I didn't revert. It's more the edit summary that made me post the above remark on your talk page. It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear colleagues, both of you. Your nomination for deletion a nine articles in my edition, together with deletion of reliable sources, instead of editing it will be considered as vandalism and treated correspondingly. It has nothing to deal with good will. I recommend you to remove all of deletion templates and cross out all your nomination in deletion discussions. Otherwise I will request for administrator attention. Your current intention are clear. I rely on your common sense. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to 30th, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at In the high attention area, you will be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at In the high attention area 2, you will be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hit Back, you will be blocked from editing.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at El Shaitan, you will be blocked from editing. SerdechnyG (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--EEMIV (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How should I treat this? As repentance, ignorance, mockery or what? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly embarrassment on your behalf. Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related [and, really, most non-English] topics on English Wikipedia are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of [English] Wikipedia policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are [inadvertently] amusing. I feel guilty about my reaction -- but not about my edits to and deletion nominations for some of your content. --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me please, what [English] Wikipedia policies I am misunderstanding? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. There's also the WP:GNG guideline, to say nothing of the WP:MOS. --EEMIV (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG - you read it? If "yes", why you nominated that two articles of characters, and two voted for deletion of two more articles, which are absolutely clearly corresponding to: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage. Significant. Passing references != significant. Anyhow, this isn't the forum for discussing the actual articles; take it to the AfDs. --EEMIV (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed significant. Books by authors described in wiki articles, and even some books which are described in wikipedia. Or, maybe, you do not consider them sighnificant?? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Calvera (Character). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Adams (Character). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Ah, WP:3RR -- another policy about which you are apparently half-informed. Like Crusio, I'm finding you increasingly obnoxious. Please stop posting on my talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, EEMIV realized that every time SerdechnyG said "As you wish", he actually meant... err, never mind, strike that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SerdechnyG

Well, I've started talking with SerdechnyG. He seems receptive to my explanations, and is keeping his cool. I explained to him why referring to yours and Crusio's actions as persecution would seem excessive here, and also stated that I felt that the two of you could have been more patient with him. In particular, it would have been worth explaining policies to him, rather than just directing him to them. Also, while some of the comments I saw would generally be seen as constructive criticism, he may not have understood them as such, given that English isn't his first language. In short, I think you bit a newcomer, but that's just my opinion. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Rising (film) and Xnacional

Hey, I could use some helpful eyes on Hannibal Rising (film) - Xnacional is bound and determined to force his preferred text on the page, disregarding the compromise version. Thanks! MikeWazowski (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's acting up again on Operation Together and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi - same crap as before... >sigh< MikeWazowski (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ATHF Wiki Pages

Why are you deleting the Mooninites, the Plutonians and MC Pee Pants wiki pages? I making them as the main characters instead of recurring characters. It's like I'm aware of making the fansites! Cabutchikas (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the note I left on your talk page: these topics are non-notable, and the content you are creating lacks reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are, anyway? This is the ATHF wiki pages I alway to wanted to create, not the misunderstanding trivia. Cabutchikas (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of message is that? I sign my name and time clock on the message I send. Are you some kind of Wikipedia expert or something? Cabutchikas (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to do something, but I was trying to make the Mooninites, the Plutonians and MC Pee Pants the best main characters instead of recurring characters by making the best articles! Cabutchikas (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Tannhauser Gate

A discussion requesting the input of this project is occurring at Talk:Tannhauser Gate#Keep or merge and redirect. For reference, see the previous AfD. Thanks. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Graffiti

You called my edit "vandalism" first, you hypocrite. Xnacional (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your ongoing raft of unexplained reverts and content removal, it was understandable to interpret your edits as vandalism. And at least I don't have to degenerate to namecalling. So -- yeah, please go away. --EEMIV (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Star Wars: Battlefront III

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Star Wars: Battlefront III. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars: Battlefront III. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rogue squadron

actually, Luke was blue five during the battle of Yavin, so rogue squadron is actually descended from Blue squadron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared456 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you...

Of course: order, and the end credits order (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086190/). Xnacional (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you choose to ignore the very clear note to editors that the majority of sources cite the main actors list as presented in the article? You've also failed to address your pedantic violation of MOS. --EEMIV (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful...

...when reverting. This reversion reinstated incorrect capitalization in a photo caption. It's not a big deal, but please do double-check that whatever you're reverting does, in fact, consist of bad edits. Lots of us IP editors know what we're doing. -68.185.201.26 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EEMIV&oldid=364866098"