User talk:FlightTime/Archive 13

The following page is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Hi, I altered Fleetwood Mac's album sales as the figure previously stated was incorrect. I cannot find a specific reference but I can easily identify each album sales which altogether total at least 120 million which is why I changed it from 100 million. I am a fan of theirs and I think it's only right that their accomplishments are correctly shown on their Wikipedia page. Please understand my concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.157.138 (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference that is in place states 100 not 120, according to the source, it was correct before your change. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. If you have some spare time, can you comment on Megadeth's talk page about an issue regarding the genres in the infobox? Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanx for asking Mlpearc (open channel) 17:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you care to weigh in at this talk page post regarding genre changes at the article Led Zeppelin IV? It would be greatly appreciated if an edit war could be avoided there. Dan56 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a personal attack here, just an FYI to +1 on your counter. Feel free to remove this once you do. —Josh3580_talk/hist 22:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, are you or other administrators/CheckUsers still available to clerk around the long-term abuse page, or is that a practically abandoned project alongside the Wikipedia:Abuse response page? AFAICS, most of the LTA cases are dealt with through global locks and blocks and Meta now, so much of the workpile has shifted to the Stewards responsibility, which probably accounts for the low maintenance we have on that page now. Anyway, I wanted to ask to propose the removal of one of the long-term abuse cases from that page, specifically Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/General Tojo as he has been inactive since 2011, and there seems to be no further need to keep tabs on him on this page, due to the above mentioned reasons. I might go through some more abandoned cases and try to get the main long-term abuse page cleaned up more properly, so we can focus on the more current LTA sockpuppetry cases. In short, this project probably needs a restart of some sort. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best contact I know (who still around) is DeltaQuad, who is an Administrator and Checkuser, which I'm neither, I used to help there, but that was years ago. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NNNNNOOOOO!

Hello Mlpearc! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may help explain what's going on: [1].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here; search for Larivee in the page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. No, I did not create Doctree2. Considered creating DocTree as a doppelgänger since I use that as my signature. For now, going to AGF, leave a welcome on the talk page and watch it. I'll deal with any impersonation attempt if that happens. More likely there's an interesting story about the choice of name (Ever read my explanation?). Thanks again, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was moved into the main space, eh? Man, my memory is failing me when I can't remember stuff I did six years ago. Good job, BTW. Fantailfan (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fantailfan, I am so glad to see you name again, you know, Sounds of the Seventies was one of first edits to Wikipedia. Glad to see ya still around. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Pigsonthewing. I wanted to let you know that your signature ("sig") design might cause problems for some readers. This is because the yellow on white has too-low contrast. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines and policy on customising signatures. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy, I've had this signature for some time now and you're the first to question it, I do appreciate your concern and your wanting to help the project. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you've had it a long time or not, it's inaccessible. Are you going to change it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andy, don't think so, it's been working fine through the years. thanks for your concern. I've checked a few old post [2] I've made many edits to this page, all my ("sig")'s seems to be "accessible" Cheers. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add Harry Hurwitz and Morrie Yohai under "Notable faculty, staff and board members" section on NYIT. Thanks--77788er (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 77788er, The best way to do this is, make your request on the article's talk page and include this template {{edit semi-protected}}, this will alert other editors that a request has been made. My knowledge of the subject is minor if at all. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notification about my change of username request. You say my request was malformed, and I'm not sure what that means. My username now is P123cat1 and would like it to be P123ct1. I did check that the new username was not taken by someone else. Is that name acceptable? If so, I will go through the procedure again. Regards, --P123cat1 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request ended up like here which didn't form properly, please try again, use the "preview" button to see if it's correct before saving. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking the time to check my username change request. I am also fine with having the first letter of the new username capitalised as Slabua, could we proceed with this change then or do I have to repeat the change procedure? Thanks in advance, --Hideaki (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is fine now, sorry, I just occasionally clerk that page and do not have the rights to complete the change, your request will be handled by a monitoring bureaucrat in the regular manner. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback}} Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 22:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of (and comfortable with) the potential implications associated with using a real name? Mlpearc (open channel) 18:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

YES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionfs (talk • contribs) 13:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page "Data (Star Trek)" but you undid my edit because it was a "joke edit", I do not feel that this is so. I changed data's species to Soong Typpe Android instead of just android, i did not intend this as a joke as he was referred to in the tv show Star Trek TNG on multiple occasions as a "Soong Type Android" due to the fact that his creator was Doctor Noonien Soong, please undo your reversion of my edit or if you still feel that I am incorrect please tell me why you considered this a joke edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.235.170 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that your change should be allowed, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and see what other interested editors have to say. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 18th May, you left a message on my talk page saying that my request for a change of username had been rejected. You said to leave any query here, which I did, did not look for the reply here (didn't get notification of a reply) and now it has been erased. I tracked it down in "View history", but after clicking on the "here" link in your message, I'm still not clear what I did wrong. Can you clarify, please? My request was to change my username from "P123cat1" to P123ct", which I checked was still available; then following the instructions I filled in current user name, proposed new name and reason for change, leaving no gaps anywhere, and not putting in a heading. --P123cat1 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello P123cat1 after doing some tracking of my own (sorry, didn't recollect your username) under the last request on this page your request is malformed and all you needed to do is re-apply, which you have. I am not a bureaucrat, these users have access to name changes and I can not hurry the process, you current request is in good order and I don't see any problems with just dropping an a. You'll have to wait for a crat' to check the page a process the request, remember it is a holiday weekend in the U.S. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know all I needed to do was reapply, but wanted to check with you whether I had made a mistake when filling in the form the first time. If you say what I did looks OK, I can't see how they can have rejected it. I have done exactly the same thing this time, so it will be interesting to see what they make of it this time! --P123cat1 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short question: using my new username, I will still be able to access all my past posts, editorial (contributions page, etc), on the Help Desk or otherwise, won't I? -- P123cat1 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC) New username came through and question now redundant. -- P123ct1 (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 Very good, I saw that xeno made the change. Enjoy Wikipedia Mlpearc (open channel) 14:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent warnings you have given User:MetalicMadness, MetalicMadness is correct in removing two of those genres: "dream pop" and "space rock". Neither is sourced in the article, and per WP:V, information like that should be sourced somewhere in the article (though not necessarily in the infobox itself). The boilerplate messages you keep leaving on MetalicMadness's talk page even talk about requiring sources, which these genres do not have. Heck, in one of your edit summaries, you ask for sources, even though none exist in the article supporting those two genres. "Psychedelic Rock" is sourced, and should stay, but giving MetalicMadness warnings for correctly removing unsourced opinions from an article, especially after MetalicMadness explained their actions, is not proper. You should remove those unsourced genres right away, or find reliable sources supporting those genres (WP:ALBUM/SOURCES is a good place to start looking). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrMoustacheMM, please see section below, that would be my response to your statement also. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 14:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about some recent warnings of yours to MetalicMadness. I was just looking for clarification of why you have been ignoring their questions. Do you believe they were asked in bad faith? I don't quite understand, ignoring him/her isn't going to make them stop editing like that. Thanks, Lixxx235 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I think it's quite clear that an diff from February 13, 2013 shows exactly what I've been trying to show MetalicMadness that they're removing established genre's. I could link a large number of music articles with established genre's that no longer have references because they are just that "established" Mlpearc (open channel) 02:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that diff, and nowhere are there sources supporting those genres there either. The whole problem here is that the genres are unsourced. If they had reliable sources in the past, those need to be re-added to the article. Otherwise they are unsourced original research, and should not be in the article. Other articles also being unreferenced is not a legitimate excuse for ignoring WP:V, a WP policy. To my knowledge there is no policy saying, "if information has been in an article for a while, then it is 'established' and no longer needs to be sourced" (however please feel free to enlighten me about such a policy). The current revision (as of this post) looks fine; it has one sourced genre (although the Allmusic source given in the infobox is questionable at best and should probably be removed; the Pitchfork review source in "Critical Reception" is good enough), and no unsourced genres. Please do not re-add the other genres without sources backing them up. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this all about!? I try to make a helpful edit and you just have a random outburst about it! I honestly don't know what you're on about, so please enlighten me! MetalicMadness (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such a bold statement for a newbie or is that an experienced sockpuppet ? (pretty handy with userboxes too!) Mlpearc (open channel) 14:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just a "newbie". It doesn't take an "experienced sock puppet" to realize that you've been rather arrogant in your revert. Still waiting for an answer to my initial question btw, but apparently another childish comment was more important. (Yep, the Wikipedia userbox templates gave me everything I needed, so don't give me all the credit) MetalicMadness (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reinstating my edit on Star Trek: The Motion Picture. There are tons of statements in that article that have no verifiable source. You remove mine, you have to remove all the other unverifiable sources. --PopCulturalTX (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PopCulturalTX, I seen your edit and reverted it, I do not have to check anything else, I acted on your edit I was not checking the whole article nor do I have to. Please review these guidelines WP:3RR, WP:RS for starters. I've also posted this query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 04:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the permission problem with this picture? This is a picture of a relative of mine that I took, and I have uploaded other pictures of this person, taken by the same camera. I have changed the license to CC-BY-SA, but I would like to know what the issue was. Please reply on my talk page. Lord Laitinen (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lord Laitinen Please read the notice on your talk, it states:

The issue is, even if it's your picture you need to give Wikimedia permission to use the it or provide proof that the same file has been previously published somewhere else and under which license. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please do not remove the tag on the file page until the issue is resolved. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Mlpearc; I'm trying to resolve this issue – could you briefly explain why you think the uploader isn't the copyright holder? Thanks, —Microchip08 (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Microchip08 Well, first off I never said the uploader isn't the copyright holder, the issue is, even if the uploader is the copyright owner, that owner has to give Wikimedia permission to use the file (Just as the notice on the file page and on the uploaders talk page states) Here I will highlite the message again:

I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

Which you have done, the OTRS pending tag that you placed is what needed to be done. Once you have recieved the ticket number from OTRS for the file it's good to go. remember all files you own and upload need this consent. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 19:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you saying that every image needs to be sent through OTRS? The user stated that it was under a compatible Creative Commons license. Microchip08 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microchip08 PLEASE read the tag that I placed above in this discussion (twice), again on the file page and the uploader's talk page, that is what is being said. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file states that it is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, satisfying the first point. I am trying to ascertain if there is a problem beyond that, because I'm not sure why this is an issue in the first place. Microchip08 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all I can, please seek any more help/questions here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems. good luck and cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: as far as I can tell, there isn't an issue because the uploader is the copyright holder, and the uploader states that it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. I would like to have assurance as to why you decided that that was not sufficient, and needed a problem tag, so that I do not put a {{PermissionOTRS}} tag onto a file with outstanding problems (and potentially exacerbate the problem). I do not need to know what to do next, I just want to know why you added the problem tag: please explain (as it could be something I've missed). Thanks, Microchip08 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained, you haven't listened. Goodbye. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BPI is the one who certifies albums in the UK. Their website is bpi.co.uk. It said that the album went gold. I was using their website as my source. How was that vandalism? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockNRollStaaaa (talk • contribs) 16:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam:

I have read your note to me, that you reverted changes in the main Star Trek article. I did, however, make some subsequent comments in the talk pages for the same article. (...) I believe that the initial script is simply in error, and for the reasons I have written. That the veteran work of Art Director Walter M. Jeffries, and the high script quality, with perhaps a good aesthetic sense from Frieberger himself, kept season three at the same, or slightly higher quality (ironically), than the first two years. This ... idea that the Fred Frieberger season - season three - was a dip... is a common perception, but one that is simply mistaken.

And you are talking to a ST fan for some 40 years. One might make a better argument that season 1 was the worst, because they had as yet to resolve some ideational and consistency issues regarding future technology and travel. But the truth is... that season three held its own, despite the cuts, and that all seasons are of roughly the same quality, though there are some conceptual and design differences. And no source is needed: it is patently obvious to the true Star Trek affectionado; you're mistaken. (John G. Lewis (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

John G. Lewis Sorry, Wikipedia does not take personal opinion, conjecture and the like, and yes reliable sources are needed if you want what you put in to stay there. This is an encyclopedia not a fan-site. Please have this discussion on the article's talk page, not mine. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this suggestion so add links. I have added as many links to other Wikipedia articles that I can find. I hope this is not satisfactory. If you are happy with these changes, may I please ask you to now remove the banner at the top of my article which makes this suggestion. with thanks Janet DavidsonNukuoro2 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nukuoro2  Done Mlpearc (open channel) 21:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing that. I also see that this banner appears: "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia." Can you please tell me how this is different to the item you removed? I thought I had dealt with this. Can I ask you to remove this banner too please? regards Janet Davidson Nukuoro2 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nukuoro2  Done I missed that sorry Mlpearc (open channel) 23:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Done[reply]

When I wrote the article about Foss Leach, two banners appeared at the top which appear to be duplicates. They are:

1: This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2014) and further down 2:This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2014)

When I wrote this article I took great care to document everything as closely as possible, with references to authoritative citations, avoiding any grey literature. There are 46 citations, each footnoted, and the references occur at the end of the article. I am left wondering what else I could cite, as I felt this was perfectly adequate. However, I assume you must have come across at least two items in the article which you felt required additional documentation. I would therefore be grateful if you could point to the particular items that you were concerned about, so I can attend to the matter.

Sincerely Janet Davidson Nukuoro2 (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Duplicate tag removed Mlpearc (open channel) 03:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the duplicate banner. However, I don't think you read my message carefully. Could you please read it again ((below): When I wrote this article I took great care to document everything as closely as possible, with references to authoritative citations, avoiding any grey literature. There are 46 citations, each footnoted, and the references occur at the end of the article. I am left wondering what else I could cite, as I felt this was perfectly adequate. However, I assume you must have come across at least two items in the article which you felt required additional documentation. I would therefore be grateful if you could point to the particular items that you were concerned about, so I can attend to the matter. Sincerely, Janet Davidson. Nukuoro2 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed all the tags I placed but, remember any editor can place any maintenance tags they see fit. Good luck, hope to see you around. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely understand what you mean and I apologize for the inconvenience, if this one is approved I plan on changing it one more time to a permanent username depending on if the Heat lose the 2014 NBA Finals or sometime later this year/early next year if they win. ESO Fan (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Reed (baseball)

Hi there thank you for moving my picture to the info box. I am very new to all this. However you removed a line I added about my Dad and Aunt saying "unsourced" Sir, I dont think I can be more of a source. I am Billy Reed's grandson. How do I get added so I can freely edit my grandpa's page without the next joe blow coming by and deleting what I type?

Hello Wreedps Please review these guidelines Wikipedia:Third-party sources, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest. Oh, also How to sign your postsMlpearc (open channel) 15:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but believe you are ready to succeed at RfA. Have you considered going for it?—John Cline (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Cline, Well, once. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw that. It was surprising; even a bit harsh, but plenty of time has passed, you handled the criticism well; taking it on-board and bettering yourself. I just think your time is now.—John Cline (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how a latent edit war is brewing over genres in this article, why are you opposed to a note requesting that changes be discussed? You justify the presence of an editnotice for reverting my edit but this editnotice is obviously ineffective at preventing genre warring. Caper454 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caper454, everything short of full protection is ineffective at preventing genre warring, I merely reverted your addition as to not repeat the obvious and clutter up the infobox. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the picture file procedure/criteria . I have to send an email to the address given and give permission to use it and distribute by adding the correct info to the "template" letter correct ? please help so I can do this right and then remember what "right" is so I can repeat the procedure in the future . Thanks for your help . In advance . CombatMarshmallow (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, follow the procedure here: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Please change to <NatCO>. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGrunwald (talk • contribs) 21:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use NatCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by NGrunwald (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted your response at CHU/S, it's up to the 'crats now. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to the metallica master of puppets page is NOT vandalism. Please refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Puppets#Track_listing

Please refer to this page for the correct track listing: http://www.amazon.com/Master-Puppets-Metallica/dp/B00EBDXTJG/

South of Heaven is a slayer song. The correct song name is Battery.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.35.170 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please read the second paragraph of this section of the Master of Puppets article, which talks specifically about "Battery" as the first track and about the derivation of the name. Please stop edit-warring reverting constructive changes, especially to repeatedly reintroduce incorrect information. Dwpaul ^Talk 03:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dwpaul and 75.132.35.170 My apologizes, Sometimes certain words stick out as usually not belonging to where you see them. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What changes did I make that need citations? More or less, all I did was move things around, most notably taking his roles before M*A*S*H and put them in their own section. As it was, his roles before M*A*S*H were in the "After M*A*S*H" section, which clearly needed to be resolved. I also took out one or two of the subjective statements.Please let me know. Thanks. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Mlpearc (open channel) 04:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for your help . Most likely tomorrow or the day after I will have the time (tooth issue) to hammer the permissions out properly . Please try and not have anyone delete these as I will do the email and stuff . Thank You again for the link . ! CombatMarshmallow (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no one is going to delete it before the 12th. Mlpearc (open channel) 08:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you could help me upload a logo for my high school wikipedia page. Im not sure what i did wrong for the copyright tags but apperently it was deleted. this is the link to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_High_School_(Sacramento) . the logo/picture is located at http://www.jesuithighschool.org/announcement/permission-use-jesuit-high-school-logos-cakes . just click on the picture and it will enlarge.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallissy (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallissy, You need to file a request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across a revert here: [3]? What's wrong with the reference? I didn't insert it, but I'm confused. The edit summary doesn't seem to say it's unreliable or anything else. --Closeapple (talk)

Hello, Closeapple The reference is mal-formed, I left this link in the edit summary Wikipedia:REFB (sorry for the inference of being a beginner, you were editing as an IP), just that {{Cite book}} should be used. Mlpearc (open channel) 04:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. I am not the user that added it: That was someone else. I'm just the user that noticed the revert. {{Cite book}} isn't mandatory for citations; the lack of a "cite" template in the reference doesn't make it malformed or invalid, or cause the claim to be unreferenced. The standard is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Am I missing something? --Closeapple (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry I assumed you were the IP since you posted here. If that's the way you want the page fine, I just reverted it so some one familiar with the subject would have a chance to change it. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've just reverted this editor at 2014–15 Southern Football League. He was simply reverting himself because he had edited with no consensus and had undone my initial revert. We had a discussion and he reverted himself. You've now taken it back to the version we agreed not to use. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. I thought they were being stubborn. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was initially, but I think that was just exuberance on the part of an inexperienced editor. We had a chat and he agreed to revert himself rather than cause a scene. His other edits are generally fine. The current version is the correct one. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bretonbanquet and Evertonfc13, My apologizes, I misinterpreted Evertonfc13's edit here as I'm reverting your (Bretonbanquet's) edit. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Were am I going to post my topics at? I just started Wikipedia a couple hours ago. What do you expect? For me to know everything. I'am Trying to protect the Minecraft Article. And you Just deleted my Vandalism BLOG! Why did you do that for?! I was trying to get Ideas why The minecraft Article is on Semi-Protected Mode... That was about The topic. You are causing Abusement For Hating my Blogs. Please Do not Block me after I wrote a blog. That took me like 30 Minutes OR SO! I Tried my best on THAT! And I'm Just a 11 Year old! I can't Just create a account. Even I do... You're try to hack me... You just send me Weird messages. I can't Do that! Gee Thanks. You are no longer allowed to Edit My Herobrine BLOGS! If you cause Vandalism... The admins will Block you instead. Not me. I will just send him after you. Notch will not be happy after WHAT you JUST DID! -TheNathanMC182 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.14.85 (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

99.31.14.85 You can start by creating an account. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herobrine Had done This IP Address! On 1 of my blogs, That guy. Breath Just see it in the minecraft talk sections. I just found out! That's VERY BAD! I'll be in touch. :) -TheNathanMC182 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.14.85 (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan, I do not mind helping you get started on Wikipedia, but I do not have time nor the patients for games. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly do appear to be one of those bothersome editors who goes around reverting constructive edits haphazardly. The recommended manner of proceeding in instances such as this is to simply correct the fragment of the edit you disagree with, rather than initiating conflict by reverting the entire thing repeatedly and needlessly. Nobody likes to put in the effort to improve the project only to have an imprudent colleague repeatedly undo their work. Please explain yourself. Caper454 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, read my edit summaries. Mlpearc (open channel) 23:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, you create conflict and then choose to elude any discussion about it. Caper454 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benhen1997 Luca Berardocco ts=17:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Ben^Yes? 17:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr M. I'd like to discuss the Roy Rogeres addietions, as you said made in good faith. Would it be necessary for references to facts commonly available such as 1)Autry enlisting during WWII and Rogers becoming Republic's "Public Cowboy No 1" 2) The fact confirmed by readily available film sources that Rogers frequently played a character with his own name and 3) Mostly after Autry's departure he played characters in the present day? Foofbun (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your edits, but this looks to me like a notable compilation album for this artist, why do you think it is spam? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see 1971 is a reissue, it is 1954. Simply changing the date might have been easier. I have added Grandpa Jones Sings His Greatest Hits (1954) and footnoted Colin Larkin The Virgin Encyclopedia of Country Music Virgin, 1998 as source. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: I never said any thing about notable compilation album or any dates, my revert was for spam "KING LP COLLECTORS ITEMS $5.00 each postpaid-ALL NEW" which you fixed anyway. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, that was just inadvertent drag with the 1971 catalogue source. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mlpearc (open channel) 03:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me what is wrong with this edit, and why you marked a revert of FIVE edits as minor? And did you use rollback in a content dispute? Harmelodix (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mendaliv‎, what's wrong with my edits here? Harmelodix (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you weigh in on this discussion regarding content removal at an article? Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was rude to you. Dan56 following me everywhere reverting me has made edgy, and I jumped at you when you reverted me too. I still say that you were wrong to revert me, but I should have been more civil. I think that we got off on the wrong foot, so hopefully we can move forward with renewed good-faith. Harmelodix (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but me having 29K edits over 5½ years, That would make me the most successful sock to date. All's good, but if I see something I do not agree with I might pop back up Mlpearc (open channel) 00:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said "meat-puppet", not sock, but I apologized so lets just move on please, shall we? Harmelodix (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this revert, in high-quality writing, new sections need new nouns. Harmelodix (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up regarding your correction of "AC/DC is" to "AC/DC are" at AC/DC – I've already reverted an editor once for changing that, and he changed it back. We've had a discussion at his talk page User talk:Tony1, but he's not having any of it. I haven't edit-warred with him, but he may well revert again. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bretonbanquet Thank you for the heads up, I'll keep an eye, I saw your change and noticed that their revert of something else also included the "is" from the last edit, chances are they have no idea they changed it back to "is". Mlpearc (open channel) 17:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thanks for your very nice comments! :) We hope (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome ! Mlpearc (open channel) 22:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan56 I don't want to ignore you query but, I wouldn't know the first thing about reviewing GA's let alone FA's, I'm just not that type of editor. It would be a waste of time for both of us, sorry. I can if you wish go through the article as I just did at Red Skelton and do some link work. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wont be necessary, since most of the sources are print, and I've archived through WebCite all the external links. Thanks tho ! Dan56 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source in my twilight zone article edit is in the article itself. The wording is inaccurate and I fixed it. But if you'd rather have an inaccurate article, go ahead and be a pedantic editor. All I ask is this, can you please provide a source for the first Twilight Zone revival airing in the 60s as it currently reads?

The page above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.