User talk:Lolthatswonderful

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Hill (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) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-inconsistency

You declared the copyright of File:America Symbol.svg to be CC-zero, but the copyright of commons:File:America Symbol (Royalty Free, No Copyright)2.svg to be CC-BY-SA-3.0. Should probably make consistent. AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to change the title of "America Symbol (Royalty Free, No Copyright)2.svg" to just "America Symbol.svg", I couldnt find out how to do it so I just reuploaded it. You can delete "America Symbol (Royalty Free, No Copyright)2.svg" if you know how. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary users do not have privileges to rename image files. You could request that "America Symbol (Royalty Free, No Copyright)2.svg" be renamed. Uploading the same file with one name and license on Commons and a different name and license on Wikipedia complicates things unnecessarily. The Commons image will not be deleted, since it is already in use on non-English Wikipedias... AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, so I can't directly rename (see preceding). You can go to page commons:File:America Symbol (Royalty Free, No Copyright)2.svg and add something like {{rename|America icon.svg|shorter name}} there to request a rename ("America.svg" would probably be considered too short a name -- i.e. which doesn't suitably indicate the purpose or nature of the file). AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out - fellow Ron Paul supporter ;)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#What should happen to the time table in the calendar section?. 68.39.100.32 (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Look, I don't want to report you for edit warring; but that is exactly what you are doing. If you don't stop, other editors will come in and get us both in trouble.68.39.100.32 (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You started it. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why haven't you made any effot to respond to why I have been editing the page?68.39.100.32 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try to use proper English (such as plural verbs for plural subjects). Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. You have been reported here.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should report yourself. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hahahahaha--Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge involving Republican Primary articles.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012, has been proposed for a merge with Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

For suspecting you of socking or meating for Screwball/68. Youve since conclusively proven that you are not at all related, especially considering your pursuit of the second socking investigation, as well as your constructive edits the past month or so. It was expanded vigilance, of course, and thats why in real life we have a several stage process of arraignment, indictment, and trial, the first two stages of which clear innocent people who may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Keep up the good work!--Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I probably would have thought I was a fake account too --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject invitation

You are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections because of your outstanding contributions to articles related to this WikiProject.--JayJasper (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Re: hi 68.39.100.32!

...? I don't understand. Bielsko (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"–"

Hello. I see, we have problem with putting "–" in Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries article. We should ask other editors in Talk Page. This will be the best solution. Greetings Bielsko (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

Was on top of that as well regarding those removals. His rationale was stupid and it was just a matter of personal preference. ViriiK (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finishing them!!! --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lolthatswonderful. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]