User talk:Catgut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I do not understand why you reverted my edit to 'Leon kroll'. I continue to believe that it is actually william Hopkins university, rather than john hopkins. I apologise if my post is in the worng place but i am new to wikipedia and do not know how to talk to you in any other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhat (talkcontribs) 00:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for contacting me. As you are a new user, you might not know that any information inserted into articles must or should be sourced. See: WP:SOURCE. This is very important, because without this rule Wikipedia would turn into a place full of unreliable rumors, ideas and thoughts. Not to mention wrong information intentionally inserted just for fun. I know in the beginning it may seem a bit difficult to understand how to contribute to Wikipedia. But it actually isn't! After a few hours or days anybody is capable of handling it. What you can do without much experience is for example using the talk page to a specific article and make proposals or ask questions related to the improvement of the article. --Catgut (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


I've been noticing you everywhere reverting vandalism. Keep up the good work. Also, in regards to the "Warning" two sections above, I hope all is forgiven--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry, i had logged out--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your words, I appreciate them a lot. See ya around, --Catgut (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Need Help with Paul Roche =[edit]

I know, I'm a bit unfamiliar with Wikipedia but trying to improve. I don't mind that little sportsman.

My question is: How can I write an article about Paul Roche and not Paul Roche (poet) or Paul Donald Roche I have to keep it as Paul Roche otherwise anybody writing an article with Paul Roche as reference will not find the right information.

The Paul Roche in place right now makes the links in several article pointing towards the important writer on Wikipedia point towards him. People reading about Duncan Grant surely are not interested at all in the hierling player whom nobody ever heard of. How can I fix that?

Here is the article I want to post: [1] The author gave me the right to put it on wikipedia.


Donscalos (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your message. Sorry for only now being able to come back to you, but I understand you've been helped in the meantime. I hope that the issue is now settled. Best wishes, --Catgut (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009[edit]

Stop beating user to reverting vandalism, or you will be blocked. :)

Potatoes.jpg An Anti-vandalism sack of potatoes
Beat you've never gotten one of these before.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents 21:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, I love potatoes! Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess were even now. :)Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected your talk page for three days[edit]

Just so you know. J.delanoygabsadds 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you deserve this--
Purple Heart Star.PNG The Purple Heart Barnstar
Thanks for hanging in there with us. — Satori Son 13:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a lot, now that makes me really proud! --Catgut (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović problems again[edit]

I noticed you had recently reverted some vandalism at Darko Trifunović. Could you please take a look at WP:AN/I#Darko Trifunović? I think we need to get this issue sorted for good. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being only now able to respond. Anyway thanks for the message! I'll keep watching the article to prevent future vandalism. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

cleanup on aisle The Aquabus[edit]

Thanks. Rollback is a great thing! Drmies (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're welcome! Thanks for your message. --Catgut (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Easton Area School District page[edit]

With all due respect, who are you to revert a change I made and say it is unsourced content? Do you live in Easton, PA? Do your kids, like four of mine, go to to the Easton area schools ? Were you on the committe that set up the new schools including the redistricting of the elementary schools like I was? For your information, I have cited a source on the makeup of the school although I posted it in the discussion section hoping that the idiot who keeps changing the information to include Palmer would see he was wrong. Why have you not changed what he has inputted? Again, myself, my wife, my neighbors and a host of others I personally know were on the Facilities Utilization Committee and were on the committe that dealt with redistricting. No Palmer children will be going to Shawnee Elementary next year. This was spelled out in detal in the proposal by one of my neighbors (See which was theplan approved by the school board. Why don't you tell that to Mr. before changing the correct information that I have inputted on this site that supposedly strives for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message! You will certainly understand that in order to maintain Wikipedia's accuracy we have to be careful regarding any new and unsourced information added to articles. It's always helpful to directly cite a source, so that the accuracy can be verified and checked. See WP:SOURCE for more info. Thanks for your cooperation, --Catgut (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I am still trying to understand why you deleted my input and noted that that you "Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content" Why is it that you chose my correction as the "dubious unsourced content" and not that of Mr. This same person originally had numerous other Easton are communities attending Shawnee Elementary until I strightened him out. For some reason, he refuses to give up on the addition of Palmer? If anyone is posting "dubious unsourced content" it is he and not I so, I'll ask again, why did you select my change and not his? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was checking the recent changes (not older ones), and the first edit made by you that I saw read like "Forks Township and Forks Township only". This sounded a bit odd, don't you think? Then, there was no source that supported your claim. Therefore I reverted, and I'd say, that the expression "dubious unsourced content" was appropriate. I didn't say that you had intentionally introduced wrong information, but simply that the information provided by you was unsourced, leaving it open for you to come back with a source and reintroduce the information. That's the way we work here at Wikipedia in order to protect the articles against any sort of vandalism. You might not know that of course, but from my experience I can tell you that especially the articles about schools are quite regularly victims of sometimes heavy vandalism, very often committed by IPs (just like you as you aren't a registered user but an IP). So being careful is a prerogative that you will certainly understand. I'd be glad if you decided to register, and later insert a source so we don't have the trouble with wrong claims regarding the Easton Area School District (of course you can insert the source also as an IP, but registering is really simple). Best regards, --Catgut (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Had no idea school listings had such problems. The reason for my "Forks Township only" comment is I am growing tired of this other person constantly changing the Shawnee portion of EASD entry to include other schools when that is just not the case. As I noted earlier, I did include in the discussion areaa as a source for my postings a PowerPoint presentation from the School District that spells out exactly what kids will be going to Shawnee. I am not certain if that is a sufficient enough source though. I will try and find another source if possible but the proof will likely have to be when the kids begin school in late August. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue[edit]

Heh. Your edit explanation read "good faith edit per WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCE: 'sex symbol' is an unsourced pov assessment, not an occuppation".

Shoot, what am I going to do for a living, now? lolol Piano non troppo (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're doing something for a living? Get rid of that attitude! Immediately! --Catgut (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


for defending my user page. Favonian (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thx for the message. --Catgut (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks from me too! Shiva (Visnu) 23:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Anytime! Thx for the message, and keep up your good work. --Catgut (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Mall[edit]

Thanks very much :-)). - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 23:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for the message! Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Giulio Chazalettes[edit]

Thanks for creating the article. I'm thinking of making a few minor alterations but nothing drastic. On the subject of his birthplace, it looks to me as if he was born in a place called Collegno (not to be confused with col legno, which goes better with Catgut). Scroll down to see his bio here[2]. I see it's a suburb of Torino and nowhere near Verona. That makes the score Torino 2, Verona 1 ... any thoughts? Best --GuillaumeTell 16:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your comment. Regarding his birthplace, I must admit that I'd go for Torino. The thing is, Chazalettes is also the name of a local liquor brand from Torino. So there could be some connection, as Chazalettes is of course not the prototypical Italian name you find in any Italian city between Udine and Palermo. Therefore I'd suggest changing his birthplace to Torino, and maybe mention Verona in brackets. Please feel free to change or enhance the article in any possible way, maybe adding some other productions staged him. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

rv your rv[edit]

Itchy WP:HG fingers? See User talk: (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC).

OK, fine, thx for the message! --Catgut (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mike Cox Catgut/Wikipedia Fail[edit]

You're clearly not even reading the article you're reverting. Your reverts return it to a state where it contains original research, conspiracy theory, and libel. This article is a very strong argument against using wikipedia, or relying on content that you've had any hand in preparing.

Whether you like or dislike Wikipedia is of course up to you. But it is against our rules to remove properly sourced content and replace it with unsourced claims regarding a "conspiracy theory". It is also not acceptable to refer to other users reminding you of our rules as "stupid wankers". I hope you understand that. Thank you for your cooperation. --Catgut (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Wow, that's some quick editing. Are you reading these things before you revert them? (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure! And especially when it comes to the removal of properly sourced content, there should always be some sort of explanation in order to prevent vandalism. --Catgut (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
How does an explanation prevent vandalism?
Well, it requires some sort of willingness to show the reason behind an edit. Of course this is just a first step in detecting vandalism, or avoiding giving the impression of vandalism. --Catgut (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. Did you revert my edit because you didn't like my edit summary, or because you didn't agree with the removal of the text? You claim you read it. What did you like about it? What about it did you consider worthy of keeping? Maybe one of us can add back part of it, if appropriate. I reremoved the data because I figured you reverted me solely because of the edit summary. If there was something more to your revert, we should discuss.
There should be an explanation for any edit, especially when properly sourced and seemingly serious content gets removed. This explanation may be reasonable or not, but it shows that at least an effort has been undertaken to somehow justify the edit. If a user continues to remove content without providing any reason, then it's vandalism (although it's possible that later on the removal may be found to be justified). Simply because any user has to explain and justify his or her edits in one or another way. As I've said before, this is only the first step. In the next phase, any edit may be reverted based or challenged based on deeper reflections on the subject or topic. This may lead to a debate, or even a conflict, but it's not vandalism unless an edit war is the consequence of an unsettled conflict. Then it's back to step one, because any edit war is considered vandalism. Of course this is just a short explanation. Please see WP:EP and WP:EW for more on the subject. --Catgut (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting that edit to my user page, also thank you for sorting out that vandalism at Montreal Annexation Manifesto. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 20:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for your message! Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lily Cole[edit]

Hi, I was wondering how much you have to do with Lily's article. I can't find anybody else who's made more than two or three edits and has edited it relatively recently! I've been meaning to do some work on it for a while and finally got round to it today. There's a lot of work that could be done to improve it, but I think there's enough there for a possible GA bid in the not-too-distant future. Would you be interested? HJMitchell You rang? 12:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message! Sorry for answering only now, but I've been busy, and will continue to be busy in the next. At least to the extent that right now I cannot really contribute much to the article. I've just rephrased the intro. I guess, a few things could be done for the article, such als updating it a little bit. Thank you for your great work on the article, maybe you'll have the time and do some more for it. I'd appreciate it very much, and I'm constantly watching the article. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bridget Jones's Diary (film)[edit]

Hi – just to let you know that the edits to Bridget Jones's Diary (film) came from my IP – there's nothing to worry about. I appreciate that you undid your Huggle warning, but I will now revert the article back to the IP's edit if you're happy with that. Regards, matt (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, and thanks for your message! Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


for reverting my page. Funny thing, the IP has made no other edits. Go figure! Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, my pleasure! Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cerebral palsy[edit]

Just a heads up - the IP was right in making this edit [3] as it removed duplicate text. --NeilN talk to me 21:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, couldn't see that! Anyway, I guess my message regarding edit summaries wasn't too wrong or rude. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


I am just removing biased statements. What is wrong with that. I see that Wikipedia does not encourage free thinking. So sad.

   If I went to Charles Darwins page and added content that disagreed with his Theories would that be okay. I doubt it. I dont know how to use discuss it with you guys I was only shocked that his views are not being represented.
Hello, thanks for your message! The problem is of course not that you're holding views that shouldn't be taken into consideration. It's just that you shouldn't delete sourced content without explaining your reasons. As you seem to have a certain point of view towards changing or improving the article, why don't you start a debate on the talkpage? In case my edits have been perceived as too harsh by you, please accept my apology, but please be assured that regarding your edits and the article in question I'm without any personal bias. Happy editing, --Catgut (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Catgut. You have new messages at Talk:November_24.
Message added 00:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mufka, thank you for your message. --Catgut (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

When you hug...[edit]

If a user blanks a page that was recently created, look in the page history to see if the blanking user was the one who created it. If that is the case, tag it as G7. Article in question: San Diego MET HIgh School. Great job rv vandalism though. Merry Christmas! TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your comment! You're completely right, I should have taken a closer look. Merry Christmas! --Catgut (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Living persons removal[edit]

I came across this edit by an IP, giving date of date of death for the subject. I am rather suspicious of this because it is an anon, and because the death date given is 14 years ago. I googled for Gary MacGregor but could find no reference to his death. Do you think this should be reverted, or just given a {{citation needed}} tag? •••Life of Riley (TC) 22:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for notifying me! Your suspicion was absolutely justified. Claims that someone has died should always be properly sourced. Merry Christmas! --Catgut (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I searched for Gary MacGregor again and found that the contributor's entry was correct after all. I added the information to the article and cited a couple of sources. •••Life of Riley (TC) 00:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, good work! --Catgut (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Facebook footage on Sea Shepherd in the Faroes[edit]

How is it relevant that the footage is uplaoded on Facebook rather than any where else? Here's the same footage on YouTube. The footage clearly shows Paul Watson, even personally interviewd, and his ship in the Faroes during the relevant incident that I'm trying to change information about. It speaks for itself. Have you even looked at it? I urge you to do so and to let the Faroe section on the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society page be changed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heri Joensen (talkcontribs) 20:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message! The thing with credible sources is not so easy, so allow me to refer you to the following articles: WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:NOR. I hope to have been of help to you. Happy editing, --Catgut (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CTM election notice[edit]

WikiProject Contemporary music


Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator.

P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

Steve Harrison (WV)[edit]

When the sole contributor of an article has blanked the page, it should not be reverted. Instead, {{db-author}} should be used. (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The tag had already been there before it was blanked. --Catgut (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


... for taking care of this guy, a well-known vandal from German wikipedia. Have a nice day. Stefan64 (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, my pleasure! Thanks for your kind message! Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

...for clearing up the vandalism on my userpage, twice! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 21:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for your message! --Catgut (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

....and clearing it up on mine! Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Anytime, thanks for your kind message! --Catgut (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

CTM scope review[edit]

Following on from this discussion, I have started to review the scope of WP:CTM's coverage on WP. There are two main possiblilies, so far:

  1. We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the Overview - Scope section on the main page.
  2. We redefine our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as contemporary classical music etc).

The former position was agreed by consensus, of course, so redefining our scope to the latter position is a radical shift that needs full discussion and consensus. In essence, the question of redefining arises from the recent mass sourcing drama:

  1. It has been suggested that CTM take full responsibility for all composer BLPs.
  2. If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see here for example).
  3. Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.
  4. Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

The full review and discussion is found at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope.

I am also looking more generally at our project's focus, especially as regards the notability criteria etc: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM. Thoughts on that are also most welcome!

Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 14:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CTM guidelines regarding infoboxes[edit]

In the wake of the proceedings at the Composers project, I am reviewing CTM's guidelines regarding infoboxes: at present we simply follow all the other CM-projects on this issue. I propose that we simply leave it to editors to use common sense and avoid policy-violations. Thoughts welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#CTM.27s_advice_to_editors_regarding_Infoboxes. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 22:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Derogitory posting on Hocking College[edit]

Please review the posting for Hocking College. It has nothing to do with the College itself and only features negative information. It should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Please do not simply eliminate sourced content. If you believe that the paragraph should be removed, use the talk page to present your arguments, wait for 48 hours, and if nobody objects then remove it. Thanks for cooperating, --Catgut (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ron Don Q[edit]

Sometimes I can't help it but get a good laugh from the "insanity" of some. This --> [4] was one of those cases. Thanks for catching that. Mercy11 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those "Don Thaler scholars"! Thanks for the message! Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi. Please join us in the discussion at Talk:Aspect ratio (image)#List_of_stations. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 22:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you! Catgut (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ 07:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 14:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, interesting proposal, let's see how it's gonna develop! Catgut (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt[edit]

Hi, I see you once commented on the dispute at talk and the comments seem constructive for me. Now, the same problem has re-surfaced: first a user with no expertise on German topics just reverted the old version, then a user that once edit-warred there came to support him (this is a very disruptive and biased user, for example he accused me of 'racism' based on this edit (!). Despite the fact that user:Mrandsl (who seems to have left Wikipedia) once explained really thoroughly at talk, what is wrong with cherrypicked additions by political opponents. Some of the sources are rather old (1994), but all are highly biased (left-wing politicians, one book by an old functionary of the GDR internal ministry etc.).

At least the presentation of those political opinions as undisputable facts is directly in violation of our core principles: the poorly sourced paragraph, where every word is dubious, is systematically re-introduced (claiming with no sources that the organization is 'intellectual center of far right historical revisionism in Germany', contrary to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution reports available). I would welcome your comments on that or advice, how to proceed further. I am aware of the WP:RS noticeboard but am skeptical in that most users are simply not well-versed in German politics or organizations. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference source?[edit]

Hello Catgut, the information you added to Theater an der Wien about productions in the era 1962-2006 is useful and improves article accuracy -- but could you please cite the reference source you got it from? Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your question! And you're right, I should have included my source, but initially I was unsure how to do it, and then forgot about it, shame on me! There is this link to the Vienna Festival's archive ( It's only in German, and it takes a little time to figure out how to do the research, but ultimately it works. This here took me to the opera productions in general (, starting with the time the Theater an der Wien served as a venue for the Staatsoper (1951-1955), and from 1962 on you'll find the annual Festival productions. One has to click through the works, and take care to differentiate between opera and drama. The next step was to find out which of those productions were merely guest performances by other companies, and which ones were proper Viennese productions (or at least co-productions). At the right side Produktionsform indicates whether it was a guest performance or an original production (sometimes referred to as Eigenproduktion), and Spielort indicates the respective venue (which in our case should be Theater an der Wien). The cast normally includes the conductor, the director, the stage and costume designers, and the singers/actors. Any idea how to do the referencing? Catgut (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I would just add in the links as you stated them, with some kind of label for what they are (including a specification that they are in German). It's true, as you say, that it would be a lot of work for someone to figure out how to extract the information you ultimately obtained. Nevertheless, I think including the links is a lot better than not including them. Thanks again, Opus33 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Please take a look at when it's done, and improve it to your liking! Catgut (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It's fine -- thanks! Opus33 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lycée International de Los Angeles[edit]

[This] was not a good revert as you restored an already vandalised page. The last good version was June 23, which I have now restored. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 02:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Corrected by --Srkamal (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Heidi Klum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heidi Klum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

false vandalism claims[edit]

I seem to be suddenly getting messages accusing me of vandalism (dating back to 09 though the message only appeared today). I wouldn't even have been on this ip in 2009 and have not read the articles in question. There seems to be some kind of mistake here? All the messages came from you and user (bot?) named kingpin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (number) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (number). Since you had some involvement with the 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (number) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!