Between The Lines (STP song)
look. this guy is messing up this page because he thinks the Alternative Songs chart is a component to the Hot 100. I disagree. It's a genre chart. Every genre has charts on Billboard.David1287 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Miraculous birth article
I see that you have been reverting vandalism. Therefore, I feel that, although your edit count is a little low for a rollbacker, you might want to request rollback here. The benefits of rollback are great for users who are involved in fighting vandalism and include access to the vandalism-fighting tool Huggle and increase speed of reverts. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand you reverting the addition of that template to the talk page at List of domain name registrars, but perhaps you could have helped to facilitate things by submitting the page-protection request to the proper place. :-) Happy Editing. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
Thanks for your edit to the above article, unfortunately the warring editor reverted your edit almost the instant that the block expired. They've dropped their sock puppets however and used their account so maybe something can be done (also, the page is soft-protected in some way or perhaps just for me, so I can't help much). I lack the seniority to prevent a logged-in user from edit-warring so perhaps you can assist here? A check on their history as well as their sock-puppets that I linked in the talk pages will make their agenda pretty clear. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Planeshift_(video_game) "minor" edits
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you have the "minor edit" checkbox stuck on or something (like your browser caching the input field). The first two minor edits didn't change content, but the other recent ones have. Spacexplosion (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Gospel of the Hebrews has been compromised by sockpuppetry
Good Day and and I will say in advance that I do not think you are a vandal. However, I do have some concerns.
I am a Biblical scholar who tried to merge the different P.O.V. editions of the Gospel of the Hebrews into a N.P.O.V edition last week. I noticed the the Talk page had been falsified. While restoring it, I came upon an extensive sockpuppet nest. The article itself has been
Your edits have caused some concern as they seem to be coordinated with those of the sockpuppet nest. If you could shed any light on the situation it would be much appreciated.
It has been alleged that the Gospel of the Hebrews and talk page had been compromised by sockpuppetry. Specifically, it has been stated that
are in violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Not only do the edit histories, but more particularly the block logs show the editing to be ad idem.
Central issue: Authentic Matthew
Most Christians believe that the Gospel of Matthew was the first gospel written and Matthew to be the author. Indeed this is the position of the Catholic Church. Yet many modern scholars have challenged this belief. Scholars such as Parker, Nicholson, Lillie and Edwards have gone so far as to say the Gospel of the Hebrews was the first gospel to be written and that it was composed by Matthew. The sockpuppet nest has a very strong point of view on this issue. The "Nest" completely rejects even the possibility that the Gospel of the Hebrews could be the Authentic Gospel of Matthew and this is the source of all the conflict.
Spurious sockpuppet accusations
According to WP:NPA, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are a violation. Serious sockpuppet accusations require serious evidence. A characteristic of "the nest" is to edit war by making many sockpuppet accusations but with nothing to support the accusations. This, this, this, this, and this are but five examples of the "nest" behavior. Indeed it appears that every editor that has gone against the "nest" P.O.V. has been accused of being a sockpuppet with nothing specific to support the accusation. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hammy64000 has claimed a conspiracy theory against him and has resurrected the terribly written Virgin Birth content fork. I have no idea how they could possibly plan to "unmerge" content from an article that has been there for well over 100 edits, but I guess if you cry hard enough... Anyway, your input would be appreciated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miraculous_births#Merge_of_Virgin_birth_.28mythology.29_into_this_article --Ari (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Rebirth (Jennifer Lopez album)
You did the edit i requested wrong, i said put February 15, 2005 as the release date of the second single "Hold You Down". But you put February 15 as the album's release date. the albnum's release date was corret (March 1, 2005). can you fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Over (Lindsay Lohan song)
in the talk page of the over (lindsay lohan song) article, you said "Done", but when you go to the main article itself, its the same, you didnt do the request. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being a great editor on WP, especially for the times you have shown up on a range of articles and when the odd editors show up with conspiracy theories and what not. --Ari (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: User:Xyz231
Hello SpigotMap, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Xyz231, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is as much an expression of a point of view as an attack; the only specific target is "administrators" and they have thick enough skins to take it. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Dude, that person worked for the NHS. Seriously, they have the right to take down the video due to health concerns. I dont want Wikipedia to be sued for someone playing a video that immediately gave them seizures. ----iSquishy (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a pilot study
Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is not being used anymore, but some do exist. After glancing at a few aviation articles, I see that this done differently than in other fields, like cameras and cars. See Ford Model T, Chevrolet Vega, Nikon F2 and Canon F-1, all products that have not been manufactured in some years but still exist. It is not universally done this way for aircraft, see Cessna 150 and Beechcraft Model 18. I have opened a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide --rogerd (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of List of Paramore songs
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on List of Paramore songs, as it underwent an AfD in 2009 and per policy is permanently ineligible for prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; this is not my endorsement for keeping the article. Feel free to list it at AfD again. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)