User talk:Alacante45

Kung Pow

I am totally baffled by your message as to why I did not cite a source in my edit. I deleted an opinionary phrase that had no citation at and was merely someone offering opinion to the effect of "the film is considered a classic by fans of the genre" What sort of citation would I be putting (!!??) (24.62.126.170 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No it wasn't, you put in It is considered to be one of the funniest films of its genre. Now that seems like a sentence to cite to me.Alacante45 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...No, I did not put in that sentence I deleted a sentence like that. I have absolutely no clue what you are going on about. I think perhaps you need to re-read the history carefully. (Alacante45 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.126.170 (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Sorry for wasting your time. Alacante45 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Princess Anne Hospital was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alacante45 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

I have replied on my talk page. Joshinda26 (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nuts?! I was REVERTING vandalism. Check the edit.

If you look at my edit, I REVERTED vandalism by an anonymous IP. Please take a look at my edit.

If you continue to make outrageous and frivolous accusations of vandalism, YOU will be the one who is blocked indefinitely. Conduct yourself accordingly. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of tags and random chatter in articles

Please don't add random chatter and tags to articles as you have done on Algae. You might want to learn how to use tags better by reading the ones you use.

"This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. Please help clarify the article; suggestions may be found on the talk page."

If you find an article confusing, write what is confusing you on the talk page, or tag individual sections. But, don't add confusing stuff, then label it confusing because of what you added.

"This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (October 2010)"

Common sense means that when a topic is long, its primary article may be long, while sections that already have major articles themselves may already exist. If you disagree with this, discuss it on the talk page.

--184.99.172.218 (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Effects on Humans part of the Article is OK.

Algae

Your recent editing history at Algae shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Report submitted.

Warned the wrong person

I believe you warned the wrong person.[1]. Looks like he reverted the same vandalism you were aiming for.--Kubigula (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC) I know about this, I looked at the wrong side. Alacante45 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]