User talk:Cloud02

3RR

Hello, and welcome. You may not have had a chance to look at the three-revert rule. Please review the policy, and ask me or anyone if you have questions. Best regards, Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to comment on the talk page about your opinion on the proper size of the image. Why is one size preferable? NoSeptember ^talk 18:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllans-Posten

You're removing quite a lot of material at your own discretion.. --Grocer 15:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

soft protected notice

Why did you remove the template? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But the artice is still soft protected. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Wii

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wii. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TJ Spyke 18:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The person who created that article did so without consulting anyone and it was agreed the best place for the info is in the Wii article. Also, remember to sign your posts. TJ Spyke 20:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vista

Please restate your opinion on the Vista move on the Vista talk page. Thank you. W3stfa11/^{Talk to me} 03:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New Bern, Kansas

Hello... just to let you know, your revert at New Bern, Kansas (fictional town) has been reversed. The consensus was to incorporate the material into the main Jericho article; it wasn't just a random act by an anonymous editor (despite how it might appear in the edit history). Please feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, nice work on the Jericho episode list. Adding the Morse code text was a good idea, especially since it makes it easier to see relationships between the weekly messages. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I can relate to how you feel - given the huge amount of "nonsense" edits these days, it is almost essential for contributors (especially anonymous ones) to explain their edits. Otherwise, they're running the risk of having their work mistaken for vandalism. Sigh... --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:FU

Your violation of WP:FU on Elizabeth Mitchell has been reverted. --Yamla 14:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Raines

why was it necessary for you to remove the Trivia section?

becuase articles should generally be clear of any trivia and if there is a way to do so, it should be done Cloud02 14:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Bug in Excel 2007

I agree that Wikipedia is not a place for the general list of bugs/issues/features in software.

However, the recent issue with Excel 2007 is a major flaw, and has the possibility for far reaching effects for users. The two links I provided (one to a Google groups discussion, the other to a Microsoft Blog) have extensive discussions on the impact of this bug.

The bug represents, more so than a flaw in the program, a flaw in Microsoft's QA. Office 2007 has been in general release for over eight months, and was in alpha/beta for many months prior. The fact that a flaw of magnitude ever made it out of Redmond's door should be a part of Excel's history, in the same vein as the FDIV and f00f bugs in the early Pentiums. Which have their own pages.

Underjack 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The iSONEWS

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The iSONEWS, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

vanity page on a non-notable website

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)