Hi - I work for one of Stanleybet International's agencies in the UK. I'm new to Wikipedia discussion pages so sorry if this is not normal practise!

I'm not quite sure what is going on with the Greece situation. I think it is an ongoing fight they in involved in aiming to make it a free market to competition rather than the state monopoly that current exists. Wasn't really linked to the riots. There have been some more recent articles since your posting: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssCasinosGaming/idUSL929688820090213 http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idINLE49808920090114

I think they would actually like their own small Wiki company entry at somepoint so if you would like to consider writing it then please feel free to go ahead. The About Us section of their site covers most things... http://www.stanleybetinternational.com/stanleyint/aboutus.jsp http://brcconline.eu/memberDetails/166/Stanleybet%20International%20Ltd.htm

Other reference sources that might be useful: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/leisure/article1480356.ece http://www.eubusiness.com/Media/stanleybet-press.08-02-28/

EdG10 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your third opinion on Talk:Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Population_growth. Are you happy with the paragraphs as they are currently proposed? Thanks. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the MoS's section on quotation. Your edit here reversed a stylistic correction. Ilkali (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look here. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to assume good faith, but it is overcoming the WP:OWN which is a problem. Please see the conversation. Thanks --Sikh-History 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling user SH wants everything his way without taking into account the available sources; which have been discussed thoroughly. Khokhar (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the description to see what I did: in this case I used the public domain blank map of Washington counties, saved a png from it (I'm not proficient with svgs) and colored it in with Paint (the Microsoft program). I also removed the water part - being lazy as I am I reduced the number of colors in the image until I could easily replace it. Then I took the info from the Secretary of Washington State website that wouldn't change because the recount is so far along and colored the parts in. I then uploaded the image with a proper description and added a free license that would allow attribution to me (the original creator released all rights). The end :) Hekerui (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blueraspberry, what do you know about Theology. The fact in the Trinity doctrine Islam's point is always being dismissed. It has been noted and reconized by scholars tat Muhammed was disgusted by Christendom's adoption of the trinitry. This is not your place as a laymen to argue that this does not belong. her. if you have a problem email me at galaticainc@bell.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.177 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sent to the email address above)

First let me say that I have no idea what edit you may be referencing, and that I apologize if I have done something to offend you. I have no particular interest in either Islam or theology, and I try not to do much editing on sensitive topics. To the best of my knowledge, I made no recent edit that matches what you are saying.

I think you might have a misunderstanding about me, and about Wikipedia in general. If you would like to talk more about this in the future, then I encourage you to please open a Wikipedia account so that we can post on each others' talk pages and preserve our conversation for other people to read. Also, I think that I can help you better understand how Wikipedia works. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, and if you feel the need to contribute then I encourage you to do so.

yours, Lane Blue Rasberry 18:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note to self: I found the edit in question here. It was a few lines starting with "Islam,with it's founding by Muhammed was a result not only of Christendom's blood thirst and violent additude that..." and I took it to be an inappropriate addition and reverted it when I was doing recent changes patrol. I took no thought as to religious implications, but at least, if an organization is said to have "blood thirst and violent additude" then a citation is needed. Blue Rasberry 19:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blueberry, the artist that I have chosen to write a wikipedia article on is an American Hip-Hop artist living in Dundee. He has nominated for 3 NME awards. As you wanted references for why this wikipedia page should be kept. Here are some links to prove that the rapper Doe Boy has been nominated for 'NME awards [1] [2] video's might not be able to be streamed because the artist might of removed the video's but theres the link. If you have any more problems please feel free to contact me again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Isammostafa (talk • contribs) 21:02, March 23, 2010

My response is on your talk page. Blue Rasberry 03:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply but as I have already told you, I cannot do anything if the artist has removed links, stories, music from either link. But I will give you the link to his 7 Digital & Wiki Answers Page. [3] [4]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Isammostafa (talk • contribs) 16:15, March 25, 2010

The links used for citation do not source the information stated in the article, as you acknowledge. If the links were valid, this article still does not meet WP:MUSICBIO standards, and without any citations it does not meet WP:RELIABLE. The new links you gave do not meet WP:Reliable. If you need help understanding Wikipedia standards I would be happy to answer your questions, but at least read WP:MUSICBIO first. Blue Rasberry 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the page been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isammostafa (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove it; only administrators can do that after they review the page. Please read this explanation. My guess is that your article was deleted for not meeting the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Do not take offense; every article on Wikipedia gets reviewed by multiple people and remember that I was not the only one to tag your article for review. Blue Rasberry 15:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to send private messages, so please excuse me.

Did you see what I (tried to) removed from the Catholic Priests' Sex Scandal article? Do you really think it should have stayed? It was an irrational screed totally unsuitable for a wiki page regardless of one's opinion on the specific issue. I think you owe me an apology and should retract the "warning" I received courtesy of you. Thank you.99.227.86.155 (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing; most Wikipedians prefer public messages so your etiquette is fine.

I apologize for reverting the changes you made to that article and sending you a warning. Immediately after I made the change I put it back the way you had it, because I saw that you had done a good thing. I am sorry, and I said so on your talk page also. Blue Rasberry 15:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

y dude how iz it not constructive—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.109.1 (talk) 17:38, March 28, 2010

Hello. I confirm that I believe this edit is not constructive. Blue Rasberry 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for pitching in! NeilN talk to me 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called pushing the wrong button, fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InFairness (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue somewhat explained here. Blue Rasberry 20:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "unconstructive" edit but you cant just remove a vast amount of information from the page. Be more clear what you mean by "unconstructive" and you could have just made it little bit more "constructive" instead of "telling me off".

I have undone your actions and would like to keep it like that unless you can justify why you have removed it in the first place or are you just power hungry?

Am sorry if I come across a bit rude but I spend ages on finding the information and posting it on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IE4gle (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not come across as rude, but even if you did I would not mind and anyway you are right. I should not have undone your edits.

If it matters to you, I can explain why I thought your edits were improper. Here is what I was examining. It is no excuse, but I did not notice you had just been making lots of good changes to the article. The first thing I saw is that you provided a reference to a link; this is a bit unusual, as it is not typical to reference a link with another link. Also, I checked your link and saw that it was to a German-language site that was selling music; now that I look again, it seems to also have German language content that seems to be about the article's subject, but not on the page for which you gave a link. Finally, and this is totally my mistake, I saw that you had added a line of code lots of times. I just counted and the number was 25. Now that I examine more closely, I see that you were making a table with entire lines of null values. Now I can see why you did this, but still, I just was not thinking to see an entirely blank line in a table.

I was wrong, but I hope that you understand that I meant no harm. I see a fair amount of vandalism and that is what I thought was happening to the article you were editing. I did not understand what you were doing, and if it is any consolation, if I see anyone else doing what you did I will be more careful in the future. When I reverted the changes I described above, I also reverted all changes you had immediately made before that change. Since at the time I felt certain that your most recent change was some kind of trouble, I did not even consider your other changes. It will not happen again. Blue Rasberry 06:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bluerasberry. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Message added 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you edited out my revision to the Shroud of Turin. The statement in the summary which denied the existance of documentary evidence was inaccurate and misleading. The problem was the author referenced in the article predated (1980) the physical pollen (1982) and limestone (1986) findings which supported the Eddesa to France linkage that is found in the historical documentation. I provided this and you removed the link. How come? JimfromGTA (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was that you used strikeout to alter mainspace text that contained references. You also added content with an oddly formatted reference to a site that is non-reliable due to its failure to list sources, authorship, or authority. I reverted it with a note saying that I thought you were doing a test edit, but a lot of what you were doing seemed odd.

I have no opinion whatsoever on the content of what you wrote in the context of the article, and first, let me say that I am pleased you are taking initiative in editing and I do not want to discourage you. I was simply looking through recent changes, and saw you had done those two unusual things. It is not appropriate to mark text in an article with proofreader marks like strikeout. However, if you see something you do not like, you should take initiative to either delete or change whatever you do not like.

That said, if someone has gone to the trouble of writing content and referencing it to a reliable source, then it is not appropriate for anyone to delete that content without somehow indicating why. I am aware that you have been writing on the talk page that you disagreed with what this passage was saying, but what got my attention is that referenced material was being striken and not being replaced with another proper reference.

The main reason that I reverted your changes is that I wanted to get your attention so that you would recognize that what you were doing was controversial. In the future, consider putting notes in the revision summary (yours was blank) so that reviewers will have some idea that you are conscious of removing sourced material. If you want to completely remove sourced material, consider either discussing it to consensus or cutting it and pasting it on the talk page for others to consider. Finally, when you reference sources, make sure the source is reliable and then reference it properly with a template like these. If you have any questions about what I am saying or ever want to talk more, then please contact me again. Thanks for being a good editor! Blue Rasberry 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're welcome :) Hekerui (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join WikiProject Cannabis, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to Cannabis. You received this invitation because of your history editing articles related to the plant. The WikiProject Cannabis group discussion is here. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants.