Welcome!

Hello, Amcbride, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for removing the vandalism.

Hi Allen, thanks for your note. I've looked at the history and where I wrote "rv to 02:29 December 21" I meant to write "rv to 02:59" i.e. the last version by 70.248.252.11. I can't see anything the anons added that should have been kept, unless you mean these quotes [1] at least some of which I believe are already on the page. But you're certainly welcome to add any that aren't if you can find full citations, and also make sure the person is still involved with PETA, or at least was until recently. One of the quotes from an outreach person is from 16 years ago, which I'd say wouldn't be appropriate to include unless she's still involved. There are some Ingrid Newkirk quotes here you might want to look at, though I see they're mostly unreferenced. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See here [2] for Gores support of the Iraq invasion which includes such quotes as going alone in the war;

"We know that Saddam has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power...We have a goal of regime change in Iraq, we have had for a number of years. We also have a clear goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be difficult to go it alone, but it's theoretically possible to achieve our goals in Iraq unilaterall."

Gore did go very anti-Iraq following the failure of finding WMD's.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.46.78 (talk • contribs)

Thanks very much for this comment. See User_talk:67.185.46.78 for my response. --Allen 06:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made some changes to Al Gore controversies. One point I will ask; It is a fact that Atta was in the US on an expired visa, so I dont really get why that part was removed.--David Foster 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of many links [3]--David Foster 10:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thanks for your note. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've responded on Talk:Al Gore controversies.

I have responded there as well, thank you for your insight as well--David Foster 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there were two Supreme Court votes in Gore vs. Bush. The first (7-2) said that selective recounts with different standards were not allowed. The second (5-4) said that time was over ... all votes had already been tabulated several times with consistent standards. You keep changing the first vote to be 5-4. Regardless of our political leanings, can we not all agree that facts should remain as facts? Yes, the more important 7-2 vote is not as widely reported, but the facts are the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkwikiwiki (talk • contribs)

You're right; I'm sorry, and thanks for pointing that out. --Allen 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the correction, I do appreciate it!

Hi Allen. Thank you for your positive comment. One thing I think Wikipedia suffers from is a lack of recognition of article writers, so your comment is appreciated. I'll look to spread the positive Karma to someone else...Jrbouldin 00:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sceptre/RfA

No, no need to apologize! I'm happy to help. But, good. Feel free to ask me any other questions you may have. Thanks.--Sean|Black 07:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unregistered user who added the extra digits to π was not just ignoring the comment about using the Talk page before adding digits, but in fact added random digits having nothing to do with π. Thought you'd like to know. --Macrakis 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

128.111.95.210hi allen thanks for your welcome. I am learning. Please explain what 'revert' means and who does it. Also I notice that some articles I edit are packed from stem to stern with self-serving points of view by those the subject of such articles. Is POV by ommission ever disciplined here? For example the Mennonite people have a long history of banning, shunning, and shaming those who fail to conform going back hundreds of years yet there is little such mention in their wikipedia history. A quick glance at any good secular history on the Mennonites shows such POV by ommission. How do I combat POV by ommision that without becoming a POV target myself and without having to fight tooth and nail against the Mennonite gang to include each uncomfortable but legitimate word here.?

Thanks for your note! My response is here, on your talk page. --Allen 05:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Allen. The POV response helped me a lot. By discipline I meant a code of conduct and people who call character assassination here etc. To me discipline and standards are quite friendly because they eliminate the Hobbesian hate. I will also see what I can do to get a name so i can find myself here! Thanks again you play an important role. 128.111.95.210 06:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I write briefly just to pass along my thanks for your recent edits; though small, they surely helped further a neutral tone in the article, something for which the article has been sorely lacking. Most notably, though, I write apropos of your talk page post about having inadvertently confused NPOV and POV; even as you confused the two phrases, your edits still better depicted neutrality than most that have been made to the article (by those who know, or ought to know, the difference). Cordially, Joe 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joe! --Allen 22:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check edits by this guy? His other activity here is spam or grafitti but I am not knowledgeable enough to do a complete revert. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 05:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hello Amcbride, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited to come. --CTSWyneken 14:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you do not support the possible changes to the alst sentence being discussed below? Just trying to determine where the consensus lies. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for all of the confusion, I've withdrawn my proposal, so if you are OK with the proposed paragraph at the top, please feel free to vote accept. Thanks and I apologize again for all of the confusion.Gator (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, it gave me a real laugh. Crypticfirefly 05:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hello Amcbride, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 98/2/0. If there is anything I can do to help you, please leave me a message on my talk page! -- xaosflux Talk

The edits which have been aged on the discussion page are immediately removed when they are posted.

You have evidently violated the implicit terms of confidentiality expected from a Wiki administrator and broadcast the name of a person who wrote you all over the site.

When your request that the interchange be moved to the discussion page was honored, you then faded away.

And now you are acting as if you are paid to suppress important truths about a company which may be engaging in dubious behavior.

The facts about USAA are going to come out: now, you have made your actions part of the story.

Do you have any solution in mind?

Creator 18-2 16:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Creator. Thanks for moving this comment up to the top of my page; I can't figure out what's wrong with the formatting down at the bottom. I'll move it back down there when I figure it out. First off, I'm not a Wikipedia administrator, just a regular editor, but you have a point about confidentiality. I could probably be convinced that I shouldn't have used your real name on the USAA talk page, and I apologize if I shouldn't have. In this case, though, I think it was okay for me to do that, because you originally posted under your real name. I don't believe that editors' real-life identities should be broadcast if they don't want them to be; but on the other hand, I think that sockpuppet accounts should be tied to the original account that they are sockpuppets of. In this case, I believe that User:Creator 18-2 is a sockpuppet of User:Robertjkoenig.

Second, I apologize for not responding to your e-mail when you posted it on Talk:USAA. Here is my response, which I will post on that Talk page as well in a few minutes: I cannot formally give you "permission" to revert my edits, but I will continue to revert unsourced allegations and self-referential edits (edits to the article that refer to the article as an article, or to the editing process). So in that informal sense, no; you do not have my permission to revert my edits. Finally, responding to your message here, I don't know of any process by which edits are "aged" on talk pages. They are discussed on talk pages. There appears to be a durable consensus on the USAA talk page that most of your proposed edits do not belong in the article. Until that consensus changes, no amount of time will make them belong in the article. As Movementarian and others have pointed out before, some of your ideas could reasonably be included in the article, if they were sourced in a way that they didn't look like original research. --Allen 17:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You da man; glad to have another 'silent reverter' on the case.

Thanks, Sampir! I'm not all that silent, though. --Allen 17:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added the new article to Portal:Dance/New articles. --Roland2 08:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, don't mind your edits of the Pokèmon Kid, but since you said on the edit page that you didn't mind if it stayed, could you drop in and put down a vote for "keep"?70.242.12.153 03:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't vote "keep"; I just don't have an opinion yet on whether it should be kept. --Allen 00:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a public person signs a statement challenging an authoritarian regime and calling it fascistic, that is a VERY important element of his or her biography, IMHO.

I did not call your edits vandalism. That was User:Tawkerbot User:Lucky 6.9. Please check your talk page's history. --Allen 19:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. What the hell?! If someone threatens to kill another editor for actions taken on Wikipedia, don't just remind them of WP:USER and request that they change their user page. It is way past a violation of WP:NPA and grounds for immediate banning. I just happened to see the page creation in my watch list since I had auto-watch on when I left a note on the talk page. Obviously they are a reactionary, bigotted, racist troll from whom I should expect nothing less, but still I don't understand how you thought that it wasn't worth mentioning to anyone else, particularly me. I'm just stunned. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 02:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I'll do my best to make better decisions in the future. --Allen 02:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that Ktothethirdpower be banned here. Please let me know if there is something else I can do to help. --Allen 02:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm sorry that I lashed out at you. You did make an effort to do the right thing. I realize that you were acting in good faith. The user was already blocked at the time of your request, as I got an admin on the IRC channel to do it. Thank you for the effort, though. That is the right place to do it. The user has now been blocked indefinitely twice. FYI violations of WP:CIVIL can lead to short term blocks, while violations of WP:NPA and WP:NLT are grounds for permanent banning. Thanks for working on clearing this up and sorry for being so reactionary. I'm operating on 4 hours of sleep and feeling kind of down in general right now so the attack just put me over the line. I've had some mate and am calming down now. Oh, one last thing: sorry about all the WP:WOTTA. :)—WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for responding. I felt awful about this whole thing, so it means a lot to me. I'm sorry you've had a rough time lately, so I hope this weekend is peaceful and rejuvenating for you. I know I'm planning some quality time with my front porch and a cold beer. --Allen 03:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the comment that was left here, because it is identical to text at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Three_forms_of_mathematical_induction --Allen 23:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh! dbtfz^talk 06:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting on my RFA and helping me become an admin. The final tally was 108-0-1 (putting me on the WP:100 list. I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, Gator (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! I'm surprised more people haven't tried to edit/rewrite this article, as it is riddled with massive POV problems. Hal Raglan 21:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that you did a lot of disambiguity work for the Heart of Gold on many Hitchhiker's related articles, your browser or editor mangled a BUNCH of special characters, such as the è in the actress Samantha Bèart's name. PLEASE be careful and do previews! --JohnDBuell 12:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. I did do previews; I just didn't look at them carefully enough because it didn't occur to me that other characters could be messed up. I'll try to figure out a different editor to use. --Allen 12:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Allen : ) I took city hick out. When I reverted, I went quite a few edits back. I must have thought the last edit before the vandalism has vandalism in it too. I can't remember now what I saw at the time. Thanks for pointing it out. --FloNight ^talk 22:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a concerted effort to remove the external link to WING Tv (which I consider a very fine resource, since they try to keep a journalistic integrity about them, they also happen to be closely linked to Scholars for 9-11 Truth). The last removal of the link was accomanied by the remarked that it was a "mostly commercial website". For the person who wrote this, is Infomercial.com or Purchasplanet any less? Indeed they are still up, as they should, please have some moral consistancy. -- IdeArchos 21:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing these other links out to me. Infowars.com, like WING TV, has too much advertising to be a good external link, though as far as I can tell it isn't included right now. Prisonplanet.net doesn't have as much advertising, but a partisan website, and as a site that is not widely accepted as a legitimate news source, it should only be used as a primary source and not as a secondary source. As an external link, I think it's okay here, as long as it's a notable proponent of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Please see Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for some guidelines on what make for good external links and reliable sources. Also, I'm not sure what your heading "Monopolistic Bigotry" refers to, but you should also be familiar with Wikipedia:Civility. --Allen 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title refers to the fact tha Alex Jones does as best as he can to censor active protestors and literati, Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani, regardless of the quality of information they give out. And the most likely reason appears to be because he wants to monopolize the 9-11 Truth movement, he and his friend Jeff Rense are sell outs.... -- IdeArchos

I see now; thanks. --Allen 11:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Yes, we have a category for Square even though it is a rectangle, but do we have a category for squares drawn in America? 1028 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it redundant to call a black person who lives in America "African-American", because if you are in America, it is quite obvious that he would be African American and not just African. That would be like calling squares "rhomboid rectangles". 1028 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1028, I'm not sure why you posted these comments both on my talk page and at Talk:African_American#Merger. My responses are at Talk:African_American#Merger. Please post any further discussion there. Thanks. --Allen 02:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it neccessary to change what i wrote? No, then why did you change it? It wasn't incorrect a don't like you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericrock (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comment, Ericrock. --Allen 23:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. the edit summary was incorrect. some of the stuff is new information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catstail (talk • contribs)

I am not interested in your comments on how I should maintain MY talk page. Stop bugging me.

What f*&Ding arrogance !

Catstail 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catstail, I have edited your comment to reflect that it is yours. You might want to take yet another look at WP:NPA, Wikipedia's policy that says you can't make personal attacks. Also, WP:CIVIL, which is Wikipedia's policy that says to be nice. --Allen 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he wasn't attacking you, but your incredible arrogance. Also, would you have told him that if he hadn't have said fuck? 1028 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if we are going to have an article about Blacks in America called African American, we should have a category for squares drawn in America called "American Rhomboid Rectangular Quadrilatteral Polygons"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1028 00:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you too.

I find Wikipedia really appeals to the Obessive Compulsive part of me.

I have a bad feeling this is going to be a long-term addiction.  ;)

Salvor Hardin 09:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so according to this page, the "grunge" info comes from an interview in german Glamour. I'm trying to find a copy of that on the web, or a proper english language source. Still working on the "cares more about acting than fame angle". Incidentally i am curious as to why you thought these pieces of trivia could be damamging. Even if you acknowledge grunge as an inherantly negative thing, the fact already stated that the woman had rejected it. Also, putting "the craft" before fame and fortune is generally seen as an honourable, rather than damaging, thing for an actor. And since when has wikipedia only included the positive? Amo 00:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amo; thanks for your post. I agree that both these things can be seen as positive (and I'm all for grunge, personally). And I agree that Wikipedia can (and should) include negative things about people as well as positive. However, while everything on Wikipedia should be sourced eventually, negative things about living people should be sourced immediately. There is a guideline about this at WP:LIVING. And though I agree that the Clemence Poesy statements aren't necessarily negative, my opinion is that they're easily enough interpreted as negative that they should have a source, sooner rather than later. --Allen 00:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generaleskimo (talk • contribs)

This is obviously vandalism (to you, by a vandal); you were probably patrolling recent changes, as I was. He has been reported at Wikipedia:Requests for investigation#New Requests. I reverted it from my talk page, and you may wish to do the same. --Disavian 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Disavian; thanks for your note, and for reporting User:Generaleskimo. Apparently he or she was complaining about this edit. --Allen 05:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks and smells like vandalism... --Disavian 21:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you step into this, be aware that AlexR will claim that you are a sockpuppet of me or vice versa. I came to Wikipedia on May 26 about 22:22 wikitime because a friend that started the article voice feminization and gave up trying to even do anything here because of AlexR.

Since I have been here, AlexR has been constantly abusive and generally reverts any change made to any article. The original argument is about the terms ciswoman and cisman that are used without a source. Attempts made to get a source were responded with AlexR being abusive and when I pointed out that ciswoman and cisman were not even defined on wikipedia AlexR added it 17:05, 28 May 2006 with the coment (if you missed it so much ...) [4] without adding a source to cisgender.

Since then I have been attempting to get ciswoman and cisman removed from cisgender and have been reading the howto’s and trying to get familiar and asking for sources. Trying to do what in says in the guidelines, and I get responses like [5],

AlexR even admits adding the reference to ciswoman and cisman in response to my complints [6], ‘’First, you complain that it is not in this article, and insult and vandalize in FV, then I put it in here, and then you descend on this article.’’

Alex then goes gives a reference to a ‘blog’ that does not define the term linguistically, [7], and are not allowed per wikipedia.

AlexR again shows that the terms ciswoman and cisman were added in response to the problems with it being used incorrectly in voice feminization. [8]

The comment says that it cannot be deleted because AlexR didn’t put it there and until I ask the person that did, it should not be deleted. [9]

AlexR says “Since you can not prove it is false” [10] Ah, no – the rule is if you want it to stay, you provide a valid reference. And it was proved false with the statement that it could not be found with a google search.

AlexR tries to claim harassment when all I have been trying to do is get a valid reference that, since I looked for it, know that it does not exist out via google. [11] AlexR refused to believe that usenet posts are not valid according to quoted wikipedia policy. (see ‘’’Talk:Cisgender’’’ Removing Reference per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources# Reliability of online sources – where I bold Usenet posts… are not acceptable as sources)

Along there has been slander, vulgarity (17:55, 22 May 2006 – vulgarity in comments) and general abuse.

(shrug) Come in and enjoy – or stay away

– Help if you can, but be aware if you do, you will be called all sorts of names and be told how stupid you are for arguing with AlexR.

I have to admit, that I can not argue with that last point... (grin)

FemVoice 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you change my edits to man, you disgusting chauvanistic pig! it is not vandalism, first aileen wuornous.. now this. you need some superkunt to teach you a lesson! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkunt (talk • contribs)

This message from Superkunt is in response to this edit. --Allen 04:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why are you going to block me. i vandalised nothing. i appeal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkunt (talk • contribs)

Sorry to bother you on your talk page about this, but I believe you might want to reconsider your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc.. I've added a comment after your entry to clear up what I believe was a misconception of what this company is. It is not the owner of 600 hotels. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 15:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xcuse me..i odnt remember touching or vanddalising Bonnie Wright article..Kindly recheck it and tell me who really did it coz it wast me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.177.70 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your message! I have responded on your talk page, here. --Allen 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amcbride, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 06:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open your card!

Dear Allen, thank you so much for your beautiful words, your kidness and your trust in me. My Request for Adminship is finally over, and the support and appreciation that the community has gifted me will stick in my mind as long as I live. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am to you for all you've done for me, and all I can tell you is, I'll try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, make sure to come here and give me a good yell! :) Seriously, tho, if you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you'll always be welcome to message me, and I promise I'll try my very best.
Dear Allen, this is the perfect opportunity to finally speak to one another after reading your words for months and months. I am sure that we'll be able to talk often, and trust me, it'd be my pleasure. Both your contributions and, most important your warm way to deal with others made me notice you long, long ago; and being supported by a person I look up to, like you, meant the world to me. I sincerely hope this is but the beginning of a friendship, and such thought fills me with joy. Plus, as I always say... handsome Wikipedians always deserve special attention! :) With a big hug, your friend,

Phaedriel ♥ tell me

Hi Amcbride, thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which was closed as successful last Wednesday with a unanimous support of (47/0/0). I will do my best to help keep Wikipedia clean, green and vandal free. Once again, thank you! --Konstable 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiki Verifiability: Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the ^{[citation needed]} template, or tag the article by adding

or

. You can also make unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done.