Hi Skysmith, I noted that you reverted the edits by User:128.91.222.206 (that is, by me). But those edits were not vandalism, and the reason for them were well explained the user's talk section. Your reversion re-introduced an erroneous summary of the cited [article].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.222.206 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

Hi Skysmith, I noted that you reverted the edits by User:60.49.63.145. Even when reverting obvious vandalism (which this wasn't), it's generally considered polite to give a reason in the edit summary. I've noticed that users often think it's OK to revert edits from IPs without explanation, on the assumption that IP-contributions are less valuable (it's not just you, but please keep in mind that IPs are people too. 60.49.63.145 has been one of the most significant contributors to Arab Spring, usually diligent about including edit summaries, and always willing to discuss disputes. Thank you for your efforts to combat vandalism, but remember to always assume good faith. Regards, --Quintucket (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• IP was not an issue, mass deletion of content and sources was. And declaring something "unpopular" tends to be politically motivated - Skysmith (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize then, I made that supposition because almost all of your recent edits have been reverts to edits by anonymous users, mostly vandalism reverts. Any rate, it's still generally a good idea to provide an edit summary, particularly in a contentious article like Arab Spring. While I admit I don't understand the reason for this particular reason and intend to bring it to the talk page, I've found that 60.49.63.145 generally has a good reason for doing what they do, and that when disputes with this user come to the talk page, consensus generally comes around to that user's position. Generally in fact 60.49.63.145 has been pretty good about keeping political bias from creeping in, and I assume from the edit summary that was the intent in this case. Regards, --Quintucket (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These things happen - Skysmith (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just wondering why you reverted my entire edit when it was much more clearly written than the previous, which was an ungrammatical, ahistorical muddle that did little to elucidate the history of the pagoda.Bruptcymanor (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruptcymanor (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what, when I look at the revert, I don't even know. It may have been a mistake revert done in a middle of patrolling pages. Sorry about that. - Skysmith (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Autopatrol. Since you had some involvement with the Autopatrol redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). I've nominated it for retargeting elsewhere. Thanks for your time. ~ Kimelea (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brigido Lara is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigido Lara until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Skysmith. Thanks for "tidying up" new user Tylerjet's recent additions to our Piero Manzoni article. I'm sorry to have to tell you, though, that almost all of those additions were copy-pasted from other sources, and I had to revert them, along with your corrections. I've posted to the user's talk on the subject, and will keep watching new contributions. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Costume by era, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You redirected Tetrapropylene to Dodecane but the target article does not mention tetrapropylene. --Bensin (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]