Please click here to leave a new message. Don't forget the header.
I like to keep conversations in one place. If you make a comment here, I'll reply here, so keep an eye on this page for my response. If I left a comment on your talk page, I'll be watching it for a while, so just respond to it there.
This is my talk page, not a restroom wall. Any kind of lashingout is ill-advised, though I secretly enjoy it.
This is my second account, I've been on Wikipedia since October 2006. Please don't link me to common policies unless you enjoy patronizing others.
If I made a mistake or otherwise screwed up, do let me know, but I probably won't apologize.
If you made a mistake and feel like you have to apologize, don't, but feel free to leave an explanation.
Do ask for help if I seem qualified, I'm online 24/7 anyway.
What they're doing is not vandalism, I think they're just a bit misguided. If they start persistently reinforcing their edits without discussion, then it'll border on block-worthy, but not yet. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 15:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were (IIRC) one of the calm voices during "the controversy"-controversy ;-) As far as I can see, the section seems to be under control - are you OK with it as it is now? TFOWRpropaganda10:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, jargon, I hates it too! "IIRC": "if I recall correctly". Anyway, cool. I arrived at the article by way of WP:RFPP - it seemed to be an article where we could avoid protection if we got editors discussing it, which worked out OK in the end, but I'd like to keep my watchlist as lean as possible, so if all's well I'll remove it. Shout if you need any help going forward! TFOWRpropaganda11:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody told you and you come and put it on Wikipedia right away? Without, like, verifying it first? Are you mad? It might as well be true for all I care but you don't declare anyone dead without citing reliable sources, that's how we do here on Wikipedia. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, do you have a source to confirm that this is actually an official cover? All the last ones that were added were actually fan-made, and I still can't find an official one. I can't quite make out the text on the cover you uploaded, but it doesn't look like the real deal either. Thanks, Amalthea12:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the image description. It's a promo CD cover with mainly information for radio stations and the like, as far as I can tell. Not sure if it's really useful for the article, but as long as it's verifiable I'm happy. :) Thanks, and Cheers, Amalthea12:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Metal tagging bot
If the bot can't remove the tags from the straight edge articles I'll go in and take them all out by hand (there are only 86 pages). Sorry for the trouble and thanks for pointing it out, not sure how it ended up on the list. J04n(talk page) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's obvious if you actually bother to read and understand the paragraph you added the sentence to. Talking to a new user is not synonymous to beating a dead horse.
No offense, but you seem like a rather dull person... reverting Mr. little irish like that. Also, you are/were/willbe stalk my edits too (because you noticed they were minor)? :| TelCoNaSpVe :|14:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left him an explanation on his talk page, and it's also none of your business.
I'm not sure what you're asking here (consider rephrasing?) but it's actually standard practice to go through other people's contributions, especially if they're vandals or if they're new and could use advice or if they've made dubious edits in the past. In your case, I'm really not questioning that you're trying to do the right thing, therefore you probably won't mind that another editor who's trying to do the right thing reviews your edits. If you have a problem with any specific edit of mine, take it up on the appropriate talk page. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 14:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks, all's I needed were the clarifications about helping other editors and monitoring their contributions to see if they needed that help. Also
Thank you for the help on my talk page. at first i was thinking "oohh no", because it just so happens I opened my new Public use account yesterday and at was thinking maybe I did something wrong....lol, just to find out that editor did know about Account Creation. Phhhuu, so again thank you for enlightenment of that editor. As far as my "eyesore" what is it exactly that's so "bad"? My guess is the bright green background. Mlpearcpull my chain'Tribs13:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely the background and then the font and then the border, and then the mess on top of the page... I guess I'll start from the beginning.
Since you have a load of pretty icons on the top of your page (they're okay on their own) then everything else is just too much, I'm referring to the black flag thing and the rainbow-color border + bright blue background. I strongly recommend toning the colors down.
I'm not sure if we see it the same way in our browsers but it took me a moment to find the content table when I first visited the page. If you could fix that somehow that'd be great.
The bright green has to go. Please.
Consider restoring the original size and weight of headers, it only makes sense that they're bigger and bolder than the rest of the text.
If I were you I wouldn't mess with the default size of the text. If people have trouble seeing then they're probably used to adjusting the size in their own browser.
Just got your last message, OK, I will make some changes. There will be a further comment here about the "Black Flag Thing" later, but seriously, Changes are coming lol. Keep checking back and if you have further ideas, you have my number. Thanx Mlpearcpull my chain'Tribs16:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the black flag has a meaning for you and, in the aesthetic sense, you can keep it if you remove the rainbow. I'll check back when you ask me to, though I'll probably keep it in my watchlist for now as I tend to do. (Also, please note what I said about adding your signature without a message. I get what you're trying to do but it may be confusing for others.) ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do have meaning for me (Flags). First off, It's my hobby [1]. This particular one, I have (and will not remove) is a tribute to my brother, Robert L Pearcy, a member of "Flight Time" mentioned Here. So, I agree, the colors I will change, the flags are not up for discussion. Mlpearcpull my chain'Tribs17:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now for the signature thing, I sign those post for two, maybe three reasons. 1). After signing the post I know for a fact and at a quick glance that I have read that post. 2). In order for my Auto Archiving work, there needs to be two time stamps on a message or the bot will not see it. and 3). which I did not think of and as my wife points out it "could" tell the editor who posted the message that "Yes" I've read your message. one final note "Please" do not edit my talk page in such a manner. If I sign a post I intend for it to stay that way. If you want to discuss this matter you have my number. Thank you Mlpearcpull my chain'Tribs17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, I don't have your number, and I no longer intend to watch or edit your page. You're missing the point here; I'm sure you have reasons to, uh, sign other people's posts (??) but it's bad practice and makes no sense. Your signature is meant for signing your posts. It's not difficult to post a short message containing "okay" or "gotcha" or whatever you say and then sign it. Also, I only removed your signature from my post, not other peoples'. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 19:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know man, they make me feel weird. I'd prefer plain "Thanks for (this or that)!" posts. I don't need barnstars or awards to show off, plus a short personalized message would mean more than a fancy template. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Stray signature? I actually left the signature there on purpose. This is for two reasons: first, because I wanted to let everyone on that page know that I was going to stalk that talk page (and essentially revert their edits); second, since I'm from the school and I occasionally logon there, I'm the one who wrote the unblock "request".:| TelCoNaSpVe :|04:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you did it on purpose but it looked like a stray signature anyway.
I don't go signing every talk page/user that I'm watching; you could've just written that message from your own account, or actually not at all since it didn't serve a purpose—I'm sure all admins know that school's out for summer. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 05:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Archives
Well, since your stalking my posts anyway, I thought I would just ask you here :P, I looked at that page, and im still confused, I added the template to my talk page, and set auto to yes but it had not archived anything. I want anything older than 30 days to go into the archive. Do I have to move it myself or something? Mr little irish(talk)12:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't used that method so I don't know, but according to Template:Archive_box#Automatic_links "you can use the auto parameter to display links to them all automatically". So it only means it will display the archive links automatically, if they exist. There are bots that do talk page archiving but I haven't looked too far into it. You might just want to read that page yourself ("looking" at it won't help too much, I'm afraid). Though, for a new user, I don't understand your rush to archive your talk page. ×××BrightBlackHeaven(talk)××× 12:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a kind of OCD when it comes to tidyness, I have to have things organised. For example, I can't have no album titles on songs on my iPod, and the songs must be named correctly. My albums have to be sorted alphabetically. Anyways... yea I just want it. Haha xD. Mr little irish(talk)12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me?
It doesn't matter if the IP is shared or not - I have control over my talk page. If you continue to modify my talk page I will report you. Please read the rules. --63.226.104.225 (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
