Hello, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, but it's a bit late - I've been editing under different names for well over a year now!

My appologies! Wouldn't want Wiki to get into trouble...I love this place! But racism is something that I personally can't stand, least of all when it's being represented as a legitimate viewpoint in a world that is attempting to globalise and secularise in order to progress. But yes, this is no soapbox, and I shall try and be more careful in the future. Thanks very much for letting me know.

--Max314 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently put a thing on my talk page telling me to stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. I assure you I did not add nonsense. A different vandal seemed to have edited on the 22 March 2006, at 14:19, the Bottlenose whale article, as seen here. I saw, while reading the article, that the "130,000,000,000,000,000 whales born in a day" claim was absurd, and completely unnecessary (along with all the rest of the additions by that vandal, and indeed all of his contributions to Wikipedia, upon further inspection).

However, here in England it is very very late in the morning, and I did not think to get rid of everything, and merely got rid of the extra numbers added onto the end of the original number. I would have done an actual revert, but I am new to this glorious place, and do not know how to revert changes yet. I would like to thank you for reverting the changes done by the previous "contributor", but would also like to assure you I am not a vandal myself.

Also, how exactly would I go about reverting an edit by a vandal? I assume there's a specific revert button? 88.104.131.62 05:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Saw you put a test 1 warning for User:Www.coolman@aol.com. However, you have done it at his user page, while it has to be done at the talk page. Recently, I put the test1 template on his talk page, so if this is his second vandalism, it should be test2 and that too on his talk page. If the reason why you put this template was to do with vandalism that wasn't reverted by me, do put a test2 template. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

"In relation to your edits of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I thought you might like my opinion as an impartial obsetrver - your version is better, but it misses out what seem like key points from the older versionm. Why not try a half-way meet? HawkerTyphoon 22:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"

Seems fine. What parts are missing that are important? The only big chunks I cut out was the intro list (which was a train wreck, arbitrary, and every one of the items was covered elsewhere in the article), and "Enduring to the End", which was unneccesary: the point already comes across clearly that Mormons do not beleive salvation is a one-time experience.

So maybe you mean some other portions? If so what, and let's put them back in if they're important. Novel-Technology 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that you can save this article, please go ahead and perform a "ruthless edit". Just make sure that you either leave the AFD tag intact, or re-install it by typing subst:afd1 inside {{}}'s. Thanks!--M@rēino 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Spaceships of EVE Online, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edits have not been accepted by the community at large, please stop making them.HawkerTyphoon "

I have been adding back in one sentance about price fixing in the game EVE online, which was there before the first time I even read the article.

It is correct, and the first time I noticed this article was when I saw a link on the EVE online forums reguarding in game manufacturers talking about teaming up to remove it, so I have been a thorn in there side.

This is not a page being vandalized, this is a page reflecting the true state of the game, in which there is price fixing by in game cartels. Because four of them want to hide it, doesn't make it go away.

Hello, I'm also a member of the Welcoming Committee - and I think there's something wrong with the Wiki syntax on your welcome page, if you haven't already found out. See User_talk:Yeanold Viskersenn - it's the part about leaving a message on your talk page. Just wanted to let you know. :-) –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 16:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your edit count is rather low, 232, so I've not added you to the accepted users. If you resubmit your name in a few days time, when you've got a few more dits under your belt it should be fine. --Wisden17 01:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you maybe have a citation for the mention of the game mentioned in psych class? The article clearly could use more sources. Thanks. JoshuaZ 13:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A beast of modern-day urban legends, with the lower half of a snail, but the body and head of a goat." Are you sure? Do you have a reference? Powers 01:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to add a reference to the disambiguation entry, then. As it is, it leaves the reader wanting more, but with no way to find more information. (Not just the reader, either; me, too!) Powers 01:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I have to say, I am impressed. I made a change to Lebanon's page cuz of the typo in the title (forgot to log in), so the title wasn't showing up, but after the message you left me, I went to Lebanon's history page and saw amount of stuff some weirdos added after my correction. And I do have to say, that I am impressed with the speed they were all deleted! :) I always here about how fast people revert vandalism, but this is the first time I saw how fast it works..

cheers,

Svetlana

130.111.248.43 20:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i know your warning is in good faith and i appreciate it. i don't feel at all uncomfortable with the accuracy of anything i've contributed. i am still doing some research and have more additions, including references, to make. when i came upon this page i was horrified because it had been devoted to vindicating the Church for any wrongs of the Inquisition and downplaying the severity of the Spanish Inquisition with questionable facts and data that contradicts even many Church records. The Church certainly has a right to post its point of view here, but so do others and this page previously failed to address much of what transpired during the inquisition other than the pope allegedly trying to stop it from happening. that would be good as an explanation of why something DIDN'T happen but i think this page deserves a searchingly honest account of what did happen and that's what i'm trying to present to the best of my earnest ability. as i look at the two messages i've received about it other than yours, one objects (i expect this is the author i've edited) and the other was kind enough to repost my changes when someone (i assume the same previous author) vandalised the site by wrting PIGGY! PIGGY! (i assume a racist slur) over where text had been. so i guess 1 for and 1 against doesn't seem that lopsided to me. like i said, i'm still researching but i'm not posting anything that's not well documented (mostly in Church records). i appreciate the heads up though and will continue to make accuracy the first priority.

thank you. 24.145.184.199 02:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not that great with using this system but i think you & "Wild Wolf," who has now threatened to block my ip adress - classy - wrote me expressing concern re the additions i've made to the spanish inquisition page. i don't know how into this subject you are or if you had been on this page before but the info posted here was all Inquisition revisionist bs that, if it belongs anywhere, belongs on the "Inquisition Myth" page (where it is already btw located anyway). maybe reading the page before gave you some ideas about the inquisition that just happen to be ridiculously wrong, but i am very comfortable with the accuracy of all the contributions i've made - i've really gone to great efforts to be as accurate as possible and have cited quite a few sources. The Inquisition was a pretty major chapter of history and trying to help people learn the lessons from catastrophic lessons like that is not at all wrong. If some language isn't polite enough for you (or is too honest or blunt), change it. I'm always curious to know other peoples' viewpoints but just reverting the page is annoying - that's not changing the things you have good reason to believe are inaccurate, that's giving somebody a hard time, which is exactly what Wolf seems to have been doing. i don't seem to be able to write him a message but if you have any contact whim you can tell him inquisition revisionism has zero credibility among serious scholars of Spanish history. i will continue to try to be as accurate as possible in future additions.24.145.184.199 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting the message from User 24.145.184.199 to my page. Here's a respones I posted on his talk page. (Sorry I didn't get to this sooner but I've been busy.)

"I’ve thought about it, and I admit that reverting the article and threatening to block your account was not the correct response to your edits. I apologize for my actions.

But I still disagree that this article was completely NPOV. I admit there were certainly abuses in some cases and a few judges were not acting with a correct sense of justice. But on the whole I do not see much to justify the assertion that the Catholic clergy as a whole was a bunch of “mass murderers.” Presenting the assertion that the Church persecuted heretics because they threatened its absolute authority is false as well. It may look that way to modern minds but the Church’s intention at the time was different. This article also fails to present any sort of Catholic viewpoint on the Inquisition (despite the Vatican’s recent apology, many Catholics are still defending it).

Perhaps it would be better to place the accusations against the Inquisition (such as those of intolerance and persecution) in a separate section, along with a Catholic response. I am happy to do this myself but I will probably be too busy for the next week or so for this. If you would like to do it, there are some good online articles at the Catholic Encyclopedia site on the Inquisition, religious toleration, and the history of toleration. There are also articles at the Angelus magazine, and the SSPX sites."

Wild Wolf 22:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's too much good stuff in here to be ignored.

What, good stuff, exactly? The entire thing is a polemic rant against the Catholic Church. I'm not even Catholic but recognize POV material when I see it. -- Stbalbach 03:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits [1] and claim it was vandalism? If anything, what you did made it worse, including adding more redirect and ambiguous links. Maybe I'm missing something. --Zimbabweed 01:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake! Fixed HawkerTyphoon

You also edited our page (Adrians Records), we believe this is a personal attack against us and our business - we were simply trying to offer an insight into the history of our company. AdriansR 18:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to join the discussion at talk:AIDS reappraisal on whether it is pseudoscience or not Let's try to raise the tone shall we?. Please read both the articles and famililarise yourself with Popperian philosophy of science relating to the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience and sociology of science. If get as pissed off with the WP:NPOV policy as Darin you can join both the other editors at the AIDS denial wiki. They're clearly fruitcakes, the question is would you be welcome at their tea party? — Dunc|☺ 10:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and it's not my school any more FYI

could I say; "Many students see Mr. Barry Armstrong as a bully abusing his powers, as it seams to only target one group of students and their friends, however others claim that he is doing his job"

would that be nutral or am I sitll being one sided? I actually want to know what I can post here about him.

That being said could I also give an example of an abuse of his power, The man brought a friend of mine into the ofice because she didn't buy a yearbook and was passing around a paper for her friends to sign. Mr. Armstrong said he wanted to compare it to washroom grafity, which is reasonable, he took three days to return the paper, I also made sure that he found me performing a similar act (he didn't hate me then) no action was taken.

Another example, a friend had a spike bracelet, Mr. Armstrong said that it wasn't alowed at school, Roman said that the spikes we're filed and couldn't cut anyone, Mr armstrong said that this made no difference, Roman then said, it wasn't in the dress code but "ok I'll take it off" Mr Armstrong said that that "wasn't good enough" and that he would need to hand it over, Roman complied Mr. Armstrong was seen fiddling with one of the spikes, at the end of the day that spike had come out, Roman asked what happened he was told that it was "like that when he gave it to him". other students wear spiked collars, brackets and belts and have never been asked to remove the articles or give them to a teacher or Mr. Armstrong.

are these ok? I really don't want to get banned...

erm, well the date is on their site but, the bits about how they chose it and how it could possibly be and unplugged session is all in the paper The Evening Star which i still have because i'm so proud of our lil' ipswich! i could scan it to you or something? or type out the whole article...it's not very big.

Hi Richard!

I just realised that you deleted the link to the LebGuide.com website that I created on Lebanon. It's tourist guide on Lebanon that includes general information on Lebanon, its history, its best touristic sites and its delicious Lebanese cuisine as well as a photo album and a Lebanese directory of links... It also features personalised e-cards, latest news, maps of Lebanon, weather forecast, videos on Lebanon, and recommendations of books...

Why did you delete it!? It's a personal website! You mentioned "rm commercial websites". Your analysis of the Lebanese websites is most probably not accurate... :(

I invite you to add back this website... You can reach me at info@lebguide.com.

Ciao, Karim

Thanks for chiming in -- that made for a gripping straight hour of reversion! This user is new and misunderstands the cats. I didn't want to be rude to him/her but removing cats without creating new, more specific ones to replace them with isn't good practice IMO (nor are such sweeping changes with no prior discussion). Now s/he is proposing that "Jewish musicians" is good enough for the Jewish composers, but I don't believe that is true. 10:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If Barba (sorry I don't know his username) would look inside Category:Jewish classical musicians, he'd see all composers are in there. That's why I depopulated the Category:Jewish composers and songwriters of composers..intending to make it purely songwriters (or songwriters who are also composers). Now, I have to work doubly as hard to maintain my deletions....can't take enough of a break to discuss it. Also, suggest a name for my account. 72.144.158.243 10:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess now "someone" (the cleanup crew?) has to re-add a lot that have slipped through the cracks (including the ones I maxed out my reverts on). It looks like whoever is researching for "Jewish composers and songwriters" in the near future will now have a rather partial category to rely on... Badagnani 10:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Haven't learned about popups yet but it seems a good tool. User has reappeared under a new name: User:ComposerCleanup but same mode of editing. Badagnani 11:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Stop reverting back and I won't revert either. Then we can talk. ComposerCleanup 11:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help me split this category. It is filling up the composer pages with way too many of the same categories. Its pointless to make a Jewish composers category when we already have a Jewish classical musicians category. 95%+ of the composers here are also musicians (they kind of have to be), but not all musicians are composers. It seems fine to me to have both in one category: Category:Jewish classical musicians. ComposerCleanup 11:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least theres evidence now that I tried to find a consensus with you and you just ignored. Unless you respond with a way we can both solve this problem I really have no choice but to revert. So hopefully your next response will be one trying to reach an agreement with me. ComposerCleanup 11:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet none of you appear to understand the nature of the edits. We could find a way to accomplish both our goals in 10 minutes. If you wish to do that, respond with a "Yes" on my talk page. Otherwise, I'll just have to read-up on these "popups" myself. ComposerCleanup 11:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for reverting an unnecessary vandalism revert on User talk:NawlinWiki. I have no idea why someone would revert an important conversations on a user's talk. Clever curmudgeon 13:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are like 2 Sonny Fan sites out there. This one has the most pictures, and it has more information on Sonny than this page on Wikipedia, graphics, etc.

Wikipedia:Username states clearly:

Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following:
...
E-mail addresses: Using your e-mail address as your username is not a good idea. Wikipedia content is extensively copied and the site itself is one of the most visited sites in the world. Any edit you make on Wikipedia will have your username attached to it and using your email address will make you a tempting target for spammers.

Thus, I have blocked the email address. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you see, I was doing an assignment regarding magic. However, I forgot to translate into my own words, and yea I copied straigt from Wikipedia. Now it seems that my teacher will be checking online. So I stupidly decided to take away the stuff I got from Wikipedia for a while so my teacher won't find out. I guess it won't work now that it's back on.

Sorry.

Hey yo, stop deleting that information, he is rumored to be signed to G-Unit. You deep man.

That's Information that I found on the streets. And I put it there. I have a cover of him standing on the corner with a medium G-Unit logo next to him.

Well, it must of been a mixtape, I put out any information that I see, no information, no website. It's up to us to change the website, not only you. Your attitude is getting me to think that you are Will Smith.

The above user has now been blocked for one week for vandalism, as per your comments on WP:AIV.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make this revert? --Mathew5000 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you thought it was vandalism but I figured out what the unregistered user was trying to do: the article had cited an AP story with a link to the Hartford Courant web site; that had expired so the unregistered user was trying to change it to a link to the same AP story at foxnews.com, then in a separate edit he changed the accessdate parameter in the template. In any event I have cleaned up that section of the article. --Mathew5000 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. What are you talking about? joshbuddy^talk 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]