User talk:Antiuser/Archive 2

Gol Transportes Aéreos

I have changed the sources on Gol Transportes Aéreos to references. I commend you for some great edits to that page. Regards, DRK 06:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Tail Number

Hi Antiuser, Thank you for your efforts on the Gol accident article and your message to me. If you carefully read the WP:RS policy, you will note that synthesis is not allowed. For example, if I find one source that says A is B, another that says B is C, I am not allowed to say "A is C" as that would constitute synthesis, hence WP:OR. Of course as soon as some acceptable source says "A is C" then we can say that too. In this case, up to now (and of course this is dynamic and may change by the second or by the time I finish typing this), all we have is:

A source saying 'Excel Air' is the owner/operator of the Legacy
A source saying that Legacy s/n X is the collision aircraft
A source saying that s/n X is FAA tail number Y

We still don't know for sure which company it is - I found 2 independent unrelated ones in US by that or similar name, one in KY, one in NY. Both seemed possible to me.

The FAA online DB for tail number Y above comes up empty. It is very possible that there is a lag in registering a new aircraft - so that would not rule out the possibility. In fact, I agree that it is very likely that the number Y is at least reserved (by Embraer?) for X. It is also possible, that they submitted a request for it to the FAA (as it appears to be a 'vanity plate' - the aircraft type followed by the company's initials) and the FAA has not yet approved it, in which case they would temporarily fly under a different N number on the ferry flight. But at WP we can't speculate like that - this is Talk page discussion. In article space we need to rely on WP:RS for anything we say, and at this point we do not have a single source that says that "the Legacy involved in the collision had tail number Y". Sorry to be a stickler for policy, but I think it will improve people's perception of WP when we are not just fast but also accurate and reliable. Thanks for understanding, Crum375 14:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1907

Thanks for the compliment. But you are doing a great job too, of course. It was nice having the article linked on the WP front page, virtually like a feature article, except it probably got more hits than a typical FA. It would be nice it we can keep up the quality as more information trickles in. Thanks again, Crum375 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antiuser, your link for airliners.net needs the original page - I run into this problem with them all the time. It looks OK for you since it's in your cache, but everyone else gets a logo only. What is the original page URL? Crum375 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got the chart now - is it BAF copyright? Can we upload it to WP? I think it definitely belongs in the article. Crum375 00:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My copy of the flight plan fax is so tiny that even when enlarged it is nearly unreadable. If you find a good copy, or can write down the actual flight plan routing and altitudes (which I can only barely and incompletely decipher) that would be great. In the meanwhile I am working on adding a section about it, unless someone beats me to it. Thanks, Crum375 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your copy is slightly better than mine, so it's now 80% clear but I need 99% or so to actually copy the flight plan text into the article. But it's good enough to back the current version, until we get a clearer copy. If you can get a reference for the Embraer crew asserting they were cleared to FL370 all the way to Manaus that would be nice. I actually have it in Globo, but I only see it in the translation mode, when I try to access it directly in Portuguese it gives me a subscription login screen. If I paste the translation URL into WP, it somehow defaults to Globo front page. And BTW, feel of course free to fix up my initial version. Anyway, thanks for the heads up for the fax - I looked at Globo just minutes before and it was still not there. Crum375 02:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one I am having problem with is this one where you click on the "confirmaram" link and get the subscription login. If I do the same under Google Translator, I get to the article no problem (where the pilots say they were cleared at FL370 to Manaus), but then as I said above, that URL doesn't work from WP. I guess I need to keep trying. Crum375 03:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antiuser, could you tell me how you got the enroute chart image? I see it was from airliners.net, but I don't see where they have charts of any kind. I am eager to get more info if possible, e.g. legend, other areas, etc. I also can't find any chart legend that I have (e.g. Jepps) that describes the black/blue one way/two way airway color coding. Thanks, Crum375 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. How do you know about the 1way/2way color coding? Do you have a legend somewhere? I don't see it anywhere on the Jepps legends, which in theory are international. Crum375 23:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found a good copy of your airway chart, and it's US gov made (not Jepps) hence usable here. In the full PDF version (which I included in the Teres footnote), the legend panel is visible, and says that blue airways are 'GPS/RNAV' based, not 'two way' (vs. black for VHF/VOR based). AFAIK, all airways are two way by default. I am trying to add the collision point and/or crash location on the sections I added to the article. Crum375 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate fair use rationale for Image:UgandaHouse.jpg

As soon as I did this, I realized my error. Could you please advise me what I should use for a postcard? Thanks! Scotwood72 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Minotaur and Labyrinth...

... were excellent. I think we need a bot or something to revert those "chicken" edits.

--wj32 09:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request for protection on Minotaur and Labyrinth

Antiuser wrote:

Hi, for some reason certain anon users keep editing Minotaur and Labyrinth to state that the Minotaur was half chicken, instead of half man. This has been going on for a long time from what I see (I myself have reverted it over 5 times). Can this article be protected so only registered users can edit? Thanks. ||| antiuser (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's the same two IPs each time, it's simpler just to temporarily block them, which I've done. Let me know if other users start causing the same problem – Gurch 09:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. It looks like someone else has already re-blocked them; this time the block duration is a bit longer, hopefully that will persuade them to give up – Gurch 02:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renault Clio

Why did you change renault clio????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.67.2 (talk • contribs)

Re: Anon users editing semi-protected pages

While both Minotaur and Labyrinth are tagged with {{sprotect}}, neither of those pages is actually protected. I'll look at the history in a second to see if I can figure out why that's the case. Possibly somebody added the tag, not knowing how protection works, or possibly an admin added the tag and just forgot to protect it. Or something else, there's all sorts of ways these things get messed up. Luna Santin 04:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check his user rights log, he's not. But that's alright; it's a fairly common misconception, and his heart was in the right place. I've decided not to protect the pages, for now, since the majority of the vandalism appeared to be coming from a single user (who I've blocked). If things continue as they have been, feel free to let me know. Luna Santin 04:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Will protect for a few days or so. Luna Santin 07:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hey, my nickname wasn't "Guido the Kneebreaker" for nothing! :) On my way. - Lucky 6.9 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could explain it. Between here and the Disney wiki lurks a guy who loves talking about the non-existent "Halloweentown 5." We persist. - Lucky 6.9 02:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ettayapuram revert

No problem. It happens once in a while, particularly when anons add misformatted text under wrong sections. Good night. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Anaraug! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to leave you a quick note thanking you for subst:ing my template on User talk:203.166.99.251. Thank you! WODUP (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protect

No you did not mess anything up. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Undelete the page I am trying to delete

I created this page and my parents and I would like it to be deleted. You are not helping me by undoing my deletion of this page. If you are an admin please delete it permanently, if you are not an admin then please play policeman elsewhere.

Best F9f7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by F9f7 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEPTEMBER 28, 2007..

HELLO ANTIUSER. I RECEIVED A MESSAGE FROM YOU TODAY, AND I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT I DID NOT VANDALIZE ANY SCHOOL'S PAGE, I DONT DO THAT, I DONT KNOW WHY YOU SAY I DID, MAYBE SOMEBODY WHO USED MY COMPUTER DID IT, BECAUSE I HAVE NO INTEREST IN EDITING PAGES FROM WIKIPEDIA, I USE IT FOR RESEARCH NOT VANDALISIM, I WILL DELETE THIS ACCOUNT IF POSSIBLE TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER VANDALISMS, THANK YOU FOR ADVISING ME, I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN TO HELP WIKIPEDIA FROM CORRUPT USERS.

PS. THE USER NAME THAT APPEARS IS Nmorg118, JUST IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING WHO WROTE THIS. I DONT KNOW HOW TO SEND MESSAGES SO I POSTED IT HERE.

hi

Hi. I found you in categories of users who can contribute in English and Portuguese. I myself am a native speaker of English, but I'm well on my way to learning Portuguese. Just check out my user page and talk page, and join in any of the discussions. To keep updated, you can even put a watch on my user page, which will automatically watch my talk page. :-) learnportuguese (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:RadioTaxi.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:RadioTaxi.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screw you.

You and I both know the Florida election recount was bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.50.242 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but wikipedia isn't the place to make political statements. ||| antiuser 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Nelson! EchetusXe (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 22:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Where I Came In

Can you please explain the point of this edit to the above article? Your edit claims to have reverted the article to an earlier version, when in fact you wiped the article and replaced it with the article on WJET-TV. Doesn't make sense at all. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I have no idea what happened there. I was reverting the edit that had the lyrics on. No idea where the WJET article comes in at all. I honestly didn't mean to do that, all I did was hit the rollback button - which should've reverted to the version without the lyrics. Thanks for letting me know, I really have no idea what happened there. I think the intertubes got tangled. ||| antiuser 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to Tapir Terrific

About the message you left for Tapir Terrific... Tapir Terrific has not edited recently and has appeared to more or less retired. But I saw your message and I think I fixed Tapir's missing font closure tags on the welcome templates that Tapir uses. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I fixed Tapir's template that Tapir used to copy and paste, but I didn't go around and fix the template that Tapir used on all of the User Talk pages before the fix. Unfortunately, there's no simple way to fix all of the old usage of the welcome template. In the particular case of Fewonka, I did make the change since the Fewonka is currently active. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gol 1907

Hi Antiuser, as you may be aware, the final NTSB and CENIPA reports for this accident have recently come in. I have tried to overhaul the article based on the updated information, and am trying to bring it to FA status. If you have the time and inclination, would you mind looking at it? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Eric wynalda.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Eric wynalda.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for catching vandals

I wasn't able to spot anything exactly like Huggle for MacOS, and have never used MacOS (nor Huggle, before tonight - in doing this work I've actually made more edits than I did previously in the years of 2008 and 2009). That said, you might havve a look around WP:CUV/T. -- Pak aran 07:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Enjoy. I'll warn you, it can be hard and at times stressful work. Tonight my block/cigarette ratio is about even ;) -- Pak aran 07:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking talk pages

FYI, guidelines on conduct on one's own user talk page has changed over the last few months. See WP:BLANKING. I got caught off-guard by this one a little while back myself. —C.Fred (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it's bad form. I also think, given this user's relative reluctance to discuss the matter, that the blanking borders on hostile. That's why I tried to explain the situation.

He's been a generally good editor. I mean, AFAIK, the prose he added to the article is good, even if it needs some cleanup. However, if he blanks the {{uw-3rr3}} warning I left him and then removes the tags from the article, he'll get blocked for 3RR violation, plain and simple. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAB has importance

The Brazilian left-wing movement MAB has many importance. My article must be in wikipedia.Agre22 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Don Philpott

Just a friendly note on Don Philpott. "Award winning" is a claim of importance, so A7 doesn't apply. He'll probably contest a prod, so if you think he's not notable, AfD would be the way to go. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAB must have an article

Please, the MAB is a Brazilian powerfull political movement.See the MAB's official site: http://www.mabnacional.org.br/ and see yourself, about the MAB and its importance.Agre22 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Deleating Kilmore warhammer 40,000 championship

Ok when you posted that message on my talk page I created that article less than 30 seconds ago. Im going to add more stuff to It and I dont see why an article that was created (now 2minutes ago) should be up for deleation.

Deleating Kilmore warhammer 40,000 championship

Ok when you posted that message on my talk page I created that article less than 30 seconds ago. Im going to add more stuff to It and I dont see why an article that was created (now 2minutes ago) should be up for deleation.Pattav2 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi, just a little reminder that speedy deletion is only for the non-contentious stuff such as biographies with no assertion of importance or significance. a state funeral and helping more than a million people keep their eyesight looks to me like two strong assertions of importance. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Hart - Sensorship?

If you Google "Denis Hart 2004" you will get multiple news articles referencing his poor handling of a sex abuse victim. A magistrate of the court in court has found his actions appalling. If you Wikipedia Denis Hart to learn about the man the only information you get is a glowing biography straight from the churches web site. This is not a balanced view. I expect Wikipedia to be informative and balanced and even a bit conversational with differing opinions represented in the same post - Don't you??

http://www.theage.com.au/national/sex-abuse-victim-told-to-go-to-hell-20090810-efkm.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic0008 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack? Oh please this is on the front page of every newspaper in Australia today, that is not a personal attack its current affairs and factual. The Obama / Henry Louis Gates saga and apology is on many Wikipedia pages just because it is messy and some wish it did not happen is no reason to remove a statement of fact. --Magic0008 (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message you just sent me

Nearly all of Mariah Carey's song articles have the pop genre listed in the infobox when in actuality the song is not of the pop genre in any way. I am not solely "editing other people's edits," because if you look you will notice that other users are also editing my edits. I hope you are sending this same message you sent me around to ALL of the users involved, because there is no good reason for you to single me out. Me and the others are all doing the same thing, if I am blocked, for violationg the three revert rule or for any other reason, then everyone involved is going to have to be blocked as well because we have all been engaging the same behavior. If a user is allowed to put an incorrect song genre (and possibly an invalid source) in the infobox without talking it out on the talk page, then a user is also allowed to remove the incorrect song genre (and possibly the invalid source) without talking it out on the talk page. Fair treatment for everyone involved. 71.12.0.105 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who was the latest to edit, I am not the only person engaging in the behavior. So, if you've sent me this message, send it to others as well. Regarding the iTunes reference, when I click on the link it redirects to a Apple iTunes's webpage suggesting that I download iTunes free of charge. It doesn't talk about Mariah's song Obsessed. That is not a proper source because apparently the webpage does not show up the same way and with the same information for all users. Why so much fuss over a label? Well, it has irked me greatly that every time I visited a music genre page that happened to be an r&b song, there was almost always "pop" listed in the infobox, either along with r&b or, in rare cases, alone. To use pop music articles as an example, on every music article page about a pop song, the "pop" genre (or some variation thereof, such as "dance-pop" or "pop rock") is always listed by itself UNLESS the song had significant r&b influences as well, in which case the infobox would have "r&b" or "urban pop" listed. The same rap rock or rap, if the song is rock, the infobox will have the appropriate rock genres listed, and if the song is rap, the infobox will have the approprate rap genres listed. But this same treatment is not applied to r&b song pages. For r&b song pages there seems to be a consistant effort to put "pop" in the infobox even when the song is not pop at all! Why do r&b song pages have to have "pop" in the infobox when it shouldn't be there? So instead of being annoyed by it, I've decided to removed them from the articles myself. 71.12.0.105 (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a History tab on the article that allows you can see a log of edits to the page, and who the edits were made by. 71.12.0.105 (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some guys don't learn...

I just had to do a bit of homework myself. That "Skilman" idiocy and the Albuquerque lcale set off my alarm bells. It's User:TvboxRemote. If he insists on posting his "jumping over people" ninsense, why, I'll just have to keep blocking him. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you, this site gives me the strongest sense of deja vu every time I log on. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Mariah Carey articles

Remember, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. I've requested semi-protection of the disputed articles. It's not just this guy: there have been socks of two long-term vandals doing the same thing to an even wider range of articles.—Kww(talk) 01:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gestures

Hey, I wasn't trying to vandalise the page; my revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_gestures&oldid=307524981 is in line with the proposed article renaming. If finished, the article will have meaning (now its simply a shorter list from a same list at types of gestures 81.243.190.8 (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information and communications technology academy

I have removed the speedy deletion tag from this article. The criteria for speedy deletion specifically exclude schools. The article definitely needs major repair work, but we cannot delete it based on lack of notability. Favonian (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Antiuser. You have new messages at Favonian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rio de Janeiro

The article of Rio de Janeiro is disorganized and very weakened. The images were showing few neighborhoods, so I changed to enlarge the view of Rio de Janeiro. I group topics that talk about culture and contemporary life in Rio but were spread throughout the article.

I read the article and, frankly, did not find the city that I lived for 5 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Losangeleslive (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the Rio de Janeiro that appears there is a true Rio. But shows a poor and decadent side of the city. I don't want to discuss with a Brazilian who knows Rio de Janeiro for longer, but I see no problems in recent and explaned photos.

And the article isn't agree the Manual of Style, the photos are concentrated in the right side.

--Losangeleslive (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re.vandalism

My edits to Malta intended to bring the article clarity and general conformity: they are not vandalism by any definition of that word in the English language. I expect an apology: you have also undone plenty of good work. Fix it. This attitude is what makes prospective editors leave the project, and veteran users so very cynical. 193.188.33.23 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you revert the article back to this [1] version, before the issue of deletion occured (where I was moving the "Art and architecture" section into the broader "Culture" catagory). 193.188.33.23 (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to the version you requested. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at 193.188.33.23

Antiuser,

I have left a note that you might be interested in here. Take care. -76.114.13.147 (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no! he broke the rule not me. i was the one who responded on the talk page and he reverted more than me anyways! Hobgoblein (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

User:WilkinsonPR

Please note you left a CSD tag on User:WilkinsonPR talk page. See [2]. I went ahead and removed it. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that...

...and I thought I was seeing double for a moment. :) I deleted the one which was tagged for speedy; no reason the duplicate can't run the AfD course. Anyway, thanks again for the heads-up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]