User talk:Martin451/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Thanks!

For reverting the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated. --Faradayplank (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi.

thank you for helping me w/ my experiment. my history teacher was wondering how fast wiki would take crap off their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinklystar (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Vandalism

Thanks mate, saved me a job there. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 00:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Then stop messing with me or i will bring out the truth you have a personal vendetta against me. Zexon (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for cleaning up my user page. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor

Could you elaborate unconstructive for one is not an actual proper word, I would like to know what was so "unconstructive" about it as this is not a complete thought! Elaborate if you can.

Read what you're reverting before pressing the Q button 96.232.11.55 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you perhaps missed my message. thanks 96.232.11.55 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure I understand. But this page Zaid Hamid has no references at all. It can't be verified. Why not do something about that ?

Those edit's were both by me

Those edit's were both by me I forgot to put my siggie on one. like i did this oneXxFallOutFan13xx (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the vandalism in the diff provided with the warning [1] It appears to be adding a signature. Is this a mistake?

BTW I'm new to editing i am doin a project and i needed the America's Suitheart info so I lokked elsewhere snd tried to add it but it was deleted and i kept adding it back because I thight I was doing something wrong (then i discovered my talk page)XxFallOutFan13xx (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Neon white is quite correct, giving a level 4 warning to a new user because they asked a question is not the right move. I have undone your reversion and removed the warning. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I screwed up there. Martin451 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• These things happen, I've made very similar mistakes myself... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but read the article

It is so terrible. Surely it is better to not know about the show than to be so poorly informed? JabbaXErnie (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Aeroflot Flight 3352

I appreciate your edits in the article, they were extremely beneficial (taking into account my poor English...) But, as for the fuel vehicles, they existed, according to the source in RuWiki. --=p.s.a.= (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, do not revert me. The person on that page has created a fake country where a profile is supposed to be. this is not appopriate use o a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rome Motion (talk • contribs) 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing???

What are you doing??? Spilotro was a professional burglar. The FBI said he was a also a hitman. And Conrad was convicted of drunk driving - there is a link to a news report (one of many) stating such. I have reviewed your edits and you appear to go from entry to entry, spending a few seconds glancing at a recent edit and then making a split-second decision to revert. Your fingers must be flying around the keyboard to make as many edits as you do in such a short space of time. I don't think you are reading the articles - and perhaps commenting on subject matter that you are not familiar with. What you are doing is not appreciated at Wikipedia. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.156.184 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not they are true is irrelevent, WP:BLP means that claims like these need to be backed up with reliable sources.

As to the amount or edits I make, I only revert edits that I perceive to be vandalism, as the above edit appeared. Martin451 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not they are true is irrelevent, WP:BLP means that claims like these need to be backed up with reliable sources.

As to the amount or edits I make, I only revert edits that I perceive to be vandalism, as the above edit appeared. Martin451 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They are backed up with reliable sources. You should bother to read the links that people have put in (they are at the end of the sentences). I mean, one of the links is an interview where the interviewer asks Conrad if he was best friends with a mafia gangster and Conrad says, "Yes, my best friend". As for Conrad's drunk driving - he was CONVICTED of it (many links on the web, several of which are noted in the Wikipedia entry).

Just because you perceive an entry to be vandalism, does not make it so. You could avoid mistakes like this by only editing on subject matter with which you are familiar.

(Preceeding comment by 81.129.156.184 (talk) )

I apologise, in this case I was wrong. However adding the words drunk and burgeler appeared to be vandalism. I watch for recent changes, and a lot of edits like this are vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for snapping at you. That entry for Robert Conrad keeps getting "cleansed" (read "vandalised") by fans (friends???) of Conrad's. Just a day after I reverted your revert of my edit, somebody came in and deleted the entire drunk driving episode:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Conrad&diff=261696866&oldid=261490203

Somebody named "Crohnie" who - like you - looks at recent edits, caught the most recent vandalism and put it back in. It's a black eye for Robert Conrad to be sure, but what is done is done. The thing is, a guy like him has enough money such that if he has been out drinking, he's got enough money that he can afford a cab. I'm sure that when I continue to look at Conrad's entry in the coming months, I will continue to see people taking the bad stuff out (including his close friendship with burglar/murderer Michael Spilotro). The entry for actor Robert Reed (now dead - died of AIDS) is also routinely vandalised (Reed despised himself because he was gay and used to threaten rent boys that if they told anyone about having sex with him, that he would see that they were harmed).81.129.156.184 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please leave the Chemetco page alone - I am a trusted contributor and am trying to get it up to featured article status

Martin, I think you believe me to be vandalising a page Chemetco of which I am the substantive author. I am doing just the opposite - slowly adding much-needed references. (Please see its origin and history over several years). Now unfortunately, your last revert seems to have done exactly what you thought I was doing - all my work has gone and there's an ugly skeleton of a page left -- a page I've spent hours on just today. Please let me get on with getting this page up to featured article status. I'm not experimenting, I know what I'm doing, but it takes a while to get the references right. Many thanksAstral highway (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Martin. I have two more original photos of the Chemetco site that I want to upload to the current page, partly because it is now getting text-heavy and these will be balance it out. I think I could do this myself, but to be honest, the look and feel of the page might suffer and it might be better if someone more skilled in this aspect of page design had a go. What do you suggest? Where and how should I upload the photos?Astral highway (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Bold I think you should upload these yourself, (option on the LHS on wikipedia pages Upload file), and place them where you feel fit. No doubt someone else will come along and rearrange them in the future, and it is far easier for them to do page design if the pictures are already there. Martin451 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my edit

Martin, I think you missed the point of my edit to the Ernie Fletcher page. I added that University of the Cumberlands, is a private religious school and not a state school, and your reverting my work removed that very key point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.160.161 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits based upon the change of the section title from "Executive orders" to "Executive orders removing protection for Sexual Orientation or gender identity". This appeared to me as vandalism, due to the amount of friends of gays editing, and this being a Biographical article. I agree I missed the point of you adding that U. of Cumberlands is a religious school, however edits like the Executive Orders do really appear like vandalism, and I reverted based on this. Martin451 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have put " a private baptist university" back into the article. Someone else may revert that though. Martin451 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from 86.175.37.34

Hi Martin, thank you for understanding my reasoning for my edit on Never Mind the Ballots. In future I'll be sure to summarise my edits and sign my comments too :) Sordyne (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on The Strangers

Thanks for removing an act of vandalism so quickly--Wikipedia would be a lot worse without efforts like yours. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ant

I've no idea what you thought you were doing but this edit[2] of yours wiped out more than a day's worth of edits, including the protection template. Pls be more careful with your edits in future. Secret Squïrrel, approx 00:30, 22 Johnuary 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

I was watching the vandalism to the page, and reverted to a clean version. I apologise for wipeing out good edits, but at the time the page was undergoing a lot of vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your tireless efforts on protecting Wikipedia from the works of Vandals. TARTARUS talk 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that...but that's really what i heard.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.176.18 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You beat me to reverting my own talk page o.O

Can you say owned? Keep up the good work ;) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I regularly get beaten when trying to revert my talk page. Martin451 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

I accidentally reported you instead of the anon account as a vandal. Obviously a dumb mistake. I hit the report button on the wrong page. Hope nothing bad came from it. Sorry. Monkey Bounce (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. Martin451 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You wuz reported to AIV

I removed the report, and am about to remove User:Monkey Bounce. Please take the report as evidence that you are doing a good job! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)... or maybe MB gets a life (see above!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Monkey_Bounce meant to report User:He3dless but pressed the wrong button. Monkey Bounce appears to be doing AIV as well. (horrible edit conflicts here). Martin451 (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Sound. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Good looking out. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I'm drunkles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FantasticMinge (talk • contribs) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Laugh-In Reversion

Hi - I'm quite new to all this, so I hope you'll educate me. My comic strip history website has been linked to from a number of articles in Wiki. Seeing that others were linking to me, I decided to help out and get my feet wet. As I post new articles and information on my website I have begun to add links from Wiki to them as seemed appropriate. I began this after reading the Wiki page on acceptable/unacceptable external links, and understood them to be germane and acceptable.

In the case of the Laugh-In article, I added links to a transcribed contemporary article about the Laugh-In comic strip, and an article written by me that discusses the history of the comic strip. The strip is mentioned in the Wiki article but no details are given, so I presumed that the addition of these links would be helpful and of interest.

Could you explain why the links were removed? I have seen that several of the links I have provided have disappeared, called 'spam' and 'disruptive'. I'm confused by this -- if these links to additional information are unwanted I'll be happy to not waste my time.

Thanks, Allan --StrippersGuide (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and repeatedly adding links to just one website is linkspam, which you appear to have been doing. Also promoting your own website, even by just adding a couple of links is considered a conflict of intrest. Martin451 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey

There is no reason for a speedy deletion. If there is a reason, I would like to hear it. --Resr Vaguery (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase used just for a few days to talk about weather in Britain is not notable enoughMartin451 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam

So if I understand you correctly, providing external links to my website, no matter what the content to which I am directing the reader, are considered 'linkspam'?

I am a recognized authority in the field of newspaper comic strip history and my site is non-commercial and devoted to discussions of that history. I was alerted to Wiki when I noticed that some visitors were coming to my site based on links on Wiki pages -- not ones added by me but by others.

So I thought I was being helpful by following the lead of others and recently began to link from appropriate Wiki pages that cover topics that are more fully covered on my website (for instance, historical notes on the comic strip version of Laugh-In that attracted your attention).

I understand the worry that Wikipedia be subverted into free advertising for other websites. Makes perfect sense. But I don't stand to gain anything by linking to my history articles, and the links I provided were all relevant and added information not covered in the Wiki article. However, if this type of external link is indeed not wanted I will of course stop. I just thought I was being helpful.

Allan --StrippersGuide (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

128.86.151.116

I did not vandalize graduate school, I manually merged that article into Postgraduate education as the two were being treated by contributors as synonymous and thus contained identical information. Thank you for bringing to my attention the fact that a template exists to do this. Furthermore the redirect on Archway underground station yesterday was a typographical error when renaming the article from "tube" which is a nickname to "underground" which is the official name. I have to date never vandalized anything nor have I ever committed any an act of antisocial behaviour. I donate my time to your organization not because I necessarily believe in its aims but because I cannot abide things being below a satisfactory standard.128.86.151.116 (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that this IP address is shared my multiple users and so consequently I shall refrain from editing from this address and instead I shall set up a Wikipedia user account.128.86.151.116 (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note you have been page blanking, which can only be construed as vandalism. The way to move article is not to delete one, and recreate another, as you did with Archway tube station, it deletes the page history. The page has to be moved, so that the contributor history is kept intact. When you have two similar articles please propose a merge instead of just blanking one (unless of course one is just a stub). Although wikipedia does like Bold editing, page blanking from an IP is usually classed as vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Z

Sorry I thought I way on my user page not yours and was trying to clear "my" page as I have just found out it is shared by scores of people. Derbyadhag (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Martin,

Is there any way for me to move contributions that I have made from the account under the university's Internet Protocol address to this account in terms of contribution history. Yours sincerely AH Derbyadhag (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. You really would not be able to show that those contributions were yours. Martin451 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a pitty. Thank you for time anyway. Derbyadhag (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Grizzly Bear

I'm pretty new to all this but I received a message about a link I added to the grizzly bear page. Apparently it was deemed unconstructive. Somewhere along the line, I linked to a page explaining vandalism and I read this: Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban. So I'm wondering, is adding a link to the external links section of a page something one doesn't do? Or, did I do it incorrectly? I wrote the text "added external link" to the summary when I made the change. Was that not expressive enough? I'm just wondering as I am supposed to be doing this periodically as part of my job. We just reworked our Natural History Notebooks section, relying heavily on our scientists for writing and verification and we were planning on adding a link to our site from the relevant wikipedia entries (in what I figured was an unobtrusive spot). I wondered if that was considered spam? The reason we thought of doing this was because we noticed that someone had added a link to our site from a wikipedia entry and we thought, what a good idea. Please let me know. I don't have a talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMN MCN (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be in the process of adding Link spam to wikipedia. You added 12 links all to the same website, and have made no other contributions,which I regarded as linkspam.

As you also say, this is your job, you appear to have a Conflict of interest, remember wikipedia is not a collection external of links. Martin451 (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. That's what I need to know. The term unconstructive wasn't very helpful, as I wasn't going in with the intent to spam, and wasn't sure if it was considered as such. As I am not an editor or a biologist, it is very unlikely that I can add anything other than an external link to any page in the capacity of my job (although I do disagree with something someone wrote in the Vic and Sade entry). I will let my boss know and she will let her boss know and we won't add any more links. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMN MCN (talk • contribs) 14:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the [very] quick revert on my user page. That was seriously fast, it never even came up on my huggle screen!! Queenie ^Talk 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Star sign articles

Hi there. Although it's a single-purpose account, I think part of the removal of those articles was correct, so I'm going to partial rv some of those articles. See my edit summaries for details. Black Kite 22:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the content removal included removing {reflist}, IMHO this is a sure sign of a vandal.Martin451 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, he was completely wrong there, but I've been meaning to remove those traits sections as hopeless OR for a while so this seemed like a good time. Just wanted to warn you so my edits didn't look like I was reverting to his version :) Black Kite 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to User Talk:194.203.158.97

Hi, I notice tha you removed some vandalism from the above talk page. However you also removed a genuine warning. If you look at the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#194.203.158.97_Titian_and_the_Conservative_Party_(UK) you will see that an admin had deliberately elft the warnign in place when deleting vandalism by the IP.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the warning that was clearly vandalism. Then I saw the warning for Toser and I am sure I checked the IPs edit history, before removing the warning, as I thought that that warning was also vandalism. I am sorry if it was a genuine warning, but if there is not edit history, I assumed it to be vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Devoucoux

An article that you have been involved in editing, Devoucoux, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devoucoux (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unionsoap (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahmed Zewail

Why did you revert my edit to Ahmed Zewail? 89.139.53.234 (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because your edit was vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chemetco

Thank you for the work you did to address points made in the GA review. This is very helfpul and I greatly appreciate it.Astral Highway (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. You have done an excellent job on that article. Martin451 (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Leon Fresco Page

Hello, I was wondering if you would be able to help draft my biographical page. I drafted it completely (you can see the history on my page) but there were concerns that I could not draft a page on myself. But most of the work is done already. If you would agree to help, I can provide you with any financial or logistical support you would need to finish the page. Many thanks, Leon.Leonfresco73 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank's

I appreciate you reverting the vandalism to my user page. -Vcelloho (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks re: Garygateaux

Thanks for reviewing the recent edits to Andy Hornby and Fred Goodwin by Garygateaux (talk · contribs). - Pointillist (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD Re-opened

As you are an editor who had been involved in the Afd discussion of Jennifer Fitzgerald, I'm here to let you know that I re-opened the discussion on the article to gain a stronger consensus. After some discussion with a few other editors I agree that I may have closed the article too hastily and that further discussion is necessary before a final decision is made. Best wishes, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Community sanctions

All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

Please also bear in mind this is a neutral encyclopedia, so British bias like you would read in the News of the World does not belong here. O Fenian (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ross McWhirter

Martin, I notice you have been doing good work on the above article and adding more information and badly needed references to the article. The only thing that concerns me is edits such as this. With respect to The Troubles both of these terms can be highly provokative and POV. I think for this article we should use more neutral and objective terms. Let me know what you think. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the word "Volunteer" is very much POV, as it is the term used by the IRA to refer to themselves, and the IRA is a proscribed organisation in both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The IRA is itself called a terrorist organisation in several places on wikipedia, e.g. List of designated terrorist organizations. As for assassination/murder, the first is unsuitable given the general activities of the IRA in the UK, and murder is the term used by groups such as the BBC. Martin451 (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer is used by many neutral media sources and is a neutral term and there has been a long standing community agreement that it can be used with regards these articles. With regards the use of the term "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" - this issue is discussed in this guideline, WP:TERRORIST. With regards the "assassination/murder" issue - I am not adverse to the former being removed, however, I would was that it should be replaced with the term "killed" - there is no doubt that he was killed by the IRA, however it is more subjective or POV to say if he was assassinated/murdered. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Chemetco - thank you!

I was delighted to see that you've added a company info-box to the Chemetco page. It looks even better than before and I hope we're gradually nudging towards featured article status. Just thought I'd let you know that I'd noticed!

Thanks for taking the time and all the best

Astral Highway (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I AM NOT RUSHING YOU, In case you did not notice I respoponed to you on talk:Moon

I AM NOT RUSHING YOU! In case you did not notice I respoponed to you on Talk:Moon#Should_the_title_be_.22Moon.22_of_.22Earth.27s_Moon.22--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is my (Emmette Hernandez Coleman) debating disruptive?

On my taklpage, Jack Merridew has expressed concern that my debating may be disruptive. Because you were in a debate with me, you are in a semi-unique position to comment on this issue. Feel free to express you're opinion on User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman#Whales. You're input is welcome and appreciated in advance--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please respond on my talk page--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Protection of WP:BLPN

The protection was only for an hour, and given the severity of the vandalism, I think it was justified. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Doniago has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for fixing my user page! Doniago (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've just nominated Beth Smith for deletion. Since you worked on it I am letting you know. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for changing the page for me. I was actually going to do it, but you beat me to it. Quick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesouljah (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

NOT vandalism

"this user finds censorship offensive"

Well isn't that what you are doing in david's case?

Richco07 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between freedom of speech, and blatant slander. Also your are in effect censoring Davids right to free speech by vandalising his own page. Martin451 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for catching that vandal. I appreciate it.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Why have you reverted this edit? - Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You seemed to be adding blocked templates to random users pages. As you don't appear to be an admin, and have an edit count of less than 300, I thought there was something odd going on. I have just checked and both users you added the template to are blocked, but it should be an admin adding the template, with a reason for the block. Martin451 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I know that I shouldn't to add a template not being a sysop. In ru-wiki (that is my home project) every user can add such template. - Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I modified humor

Only a small percentage of my editing was faulty, otherwise adding mimes and changing "humour" to "humor" is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.176.32 (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A small percentage of your editing was still blatant vandalism. Trying to hide vandalism in the middle of a bunch of minor changes is not OK. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ice Cube 2000

He was given a final warning, which he removed. Please report the user. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Borismule

Thanks for the concern, but there's no need to remove edits like this from my talk page. The editor who made it is unhappy that an article of his was deleted and is perhaps a little forceful in his questioning, but I don't mind him asking questions. Euryalus (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

the population of crewe is around 100,000 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.139.82 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The population may or may not be exactly 100,000 people, but there definitely was not a 2008 or 2009 census. Martin451 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Hi

Why this revert [3]? - 58.8.10.182 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

See this, I was reverting the additions may in the edit prior to yours. Two London children keep adding there own names to the list of architects, it happens every couple of weeks. I apologise for reverting your edit as well. Martin451 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So it's OK for my revisions to go back in again? 58.8.10.182 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Martin451 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 58.8.10.182 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your test

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Mrandsl (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit which I undid, refactored someone elses comment, and censored them. Whilst you may not agree with what they said, and regard it as racist, it does not have any major issues such as WP:BLP issues. Please note wikipedia is not censored. Martin451 (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wick (whistleblower) (2nd nomination)

I have nominated John Wick (whistleblower) for deletion. The AFD discussion and reasoning for this can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wick (whistleblower) (2nd nomination).

I am notifying you since you either created the article, were significantly involved in its editing, or were the nominator or closer of the original deletion discussion. If you are interested in this, please participate by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Hammond

Why remove the reference to Richard's love of Land Rovers and the work he had done to Buster last year? It is something he is rather proud of, was it lack of a reference or citation because I can pull one of those from LRM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.130.95 (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you called him a nutcase. I have put the bit back in and reworded it slightly. Martin451 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it is a term of endearment with Land Rover owners :) I am fine with the rewording though, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.35.130.95 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

You have a response on my talk page. Please read it. User Talk:Anhydrobiosis

Test sig.Martin451 (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin451 (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

daybreakers movie

ok, i dont get, you removed all links i posted about site that actuly has more info about movie then offical one. ok, i admit i also put for every actors involved in movie, i kinda got carried away. but why removing link which is exclusivly releted to movie.

its not about the backlink, like you said you use nofollow, but i put a link for ppl to see a lot more info about the movie on that web page. so its not a spam link its a website exclusivly made for new information about the Daybreakers movie. Im sharing related information, not like i spamed the "lose your fat" ads.

why you allow offical sites for movie then, isnt it the same, just the site i put is more informitive...

--Dimgrave26 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just a collection of external links. Repeatedly adding the same site is SPAM, even if it is not your site. There are probably many sites about this film, and all the other films that e.g. Sam Neil has been in, if they were all added, the article would just be one collection of links. If you do want to share infomation, why not add to the daybreakers article on wikipedia? Martin451 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A late thank you

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! Darren23 (Contribs) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

edits

hi, i added a link to the Zeta Phi chapter for Sam Walton as his association with this fraternity chapter is unique enough to merit its own wiki page (you can look at a debate over that issue that was fought some time ago). I have no issue with you watching over my edits, but in this case they are merited and have relevance. I hope you will consider restoring my edit. Respectfully yours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.128.199 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have restored. TBH I think it would be wise to put Zeta Phi in brackets after Missouri, rather than just link Missouri to Zeta Phi, or something similar. Martin451 (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Engology

I wrote the following at Engology's talk page, but he deleted it. I'm reposting it here in case he does it again.

Engology is, from what I can tell, a one-note crank. See my comments at this talk page; he stopped trying to add his edit there, but as you've seen he's been successful at sneaking it in everywhere else. YLee (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

YLee (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalising.

Guess You didn't read my comment to You on my talk page.

George Parker was the founder of the Parker Pen company and is featured over and over on my site. quink was manufactured by the same company, as was Vacumatic, Duofold, Sonnet, Parker 21,41,51,61,71,100 and other pen models featured on Wikipedia and on my site. I can agree about the Sheaffer link, I just thought people interested in pens wanted links to pen information. Please let me know what You think. /Algabatz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algabatz (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did read your comment on your talk page, however you are still just spamming external links to your web site. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and just continually adding your own site to external links, without trying to improve the articles is spam. wikipedia is not here to promote your website. Martin451 (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Ok I see. I thought Wikipedia was all about sharing information. I just wanted to share the information I have spent years accumulating. Sorry.

By all means share your information by improving the articles. Add some of your knowledge to wikipedia, it would be very usefull. Martin451 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He he, maybe I will when I have time. I still have much to do on my own site, I've been writing on it since 1995. I suggest You take a look at it, even if Your not interested in pens or collecting You might find something interesting. Regards, Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algabatz (talk • contribs) 23:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, You've removed all the links, even those that was there before today! Don't You think any of them was appropriate? There are loads of links to stores and stuff. I'm just a collector I'm not making money off my site. Algabatz (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Algabatz

Someone else has been removing the old links. However if you had just added your site to one page, it might have gone unnoticed. Adding your site to 20+ different pages will get them all reverted. Why did you think adding your site to Capillary action and Société Bic was justified? How can I tell what is appropriate in amongst all the noise? Martin451 (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was the one who removed most (possibly all) of the old links. If you'll look at WP:LINKSPAM, it explains that repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Honestly, if we need to link to a site that provides relevant links, we should link to DMOZ. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Point taken. Learning all the time. I just added a big chunk to the Parker Pen Company page. As for the capillary action, that's how some Parker pens work (read under Parker 61), but i see Your point. Algabatz (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Algabatz

Bill Frist

Hi Martin451,

I'm brand new to Wikipedia. I tried to edit a section on Senator Frist personal life that contained information about his adult sons being arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence, but it kept reverting back, now Wikipedia is telling me that I might be banned for "warring". I have no idea how to make this change without getting banned. Can you tell me?

Paradise Daytona Beach (talk) 01:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Paradise Daytona Beach

First of all, if you make a change, and someone reverts it, don't make the same change again (unless you know what you are doing), go to the talk page, like you did. Start a new section, and type what you think should be changed there. I would advise you not to re-edit the main article again until you have explained the edits you want to make, and they have been commented on. Please read WP:3RR

Secondly, when you make edits, fill in the Edit summary with a description of your edit. IF it is a controversial edit you need to explain why you make the change. If it is just spelling then type sp. Martin451 (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GUU edit about secret society

The edit I made to the secret society (The Nicholas V) can't be deconstructive. Every university that has a Secret Society has a separate mention on the wikipedia page because it's really important for prospective students to know about. It hasn't gone public so I can't really put up a members list or a website. Hope you understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.65.5 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That is really just a speculative piece, with nothing to back it up. If it truely is secret, how can it be known about? Martin451 (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Heart Attack Grill

This page is no different than any other restaurant page on wikipedia. All statements I am making are fact. I can remove any so called weasle words. Is not the purpose of wikipedia to be factual. I understand this not intended to be an advertisement. If this is not allowed then EVERY other restaurant needs to be removed! Am I allowed to keep editing the page. Are you the admin for wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmotter1 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin's not, but I am. You have blatantly admitted that you are working with the owner of the restaurant to rewrite this page to his specs. You are deleting references and writing it in the form of an advertisement...in addition, you have a clear conflict of interest with the subject. As for every other restaurant, the majority of those pages are not written by the owner of the restaurant...and your argument doesn't even make sense, no one is deleting the article...it's just not supposed to be turned into a PR puff piece. --Smashville^talk 20:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

John Parascandola

Hello Martin,

Thanks for the welcome, but I have been here for quite a while. I would appreciate it if you could leave Dr. Parascandola's entry alone. All the information is accurate. I do not mean to seem rude, but I worked very hard on the page and do not like major changes. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware that you do not WP:OWN this article, anyone can edit it. It should follow the manual of style, and someone else edited it so that it was close to the WP:MOS. As it is a WP:BLP it needs inline citations which is currently does not have, I added a couple. You have reverted the article to before these edits, putting back in several major issues that the article has. Martin451 (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that I do not own the article. In addition, I do not mind if you add citations. However, you removed a lot of the infobox information and almost all of the introductory information. I think it is common courtesy to ask an original creator or editor before making major changes. I would appreciate it if you would inform me before making major changes. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

BlueLankan

I am a new user . I am sorry for what I did. Thank you for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

'Saw you. ;) For James Brown, I quoted "Master" because it was sounding "too much" in my taste. That's it. I won't mind being reverted for that as well :) Cheers. — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 22:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I must of hit the wrong key by mistake (my bad). I undid my own edit, and the warning to you. Martin451 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My userpage

Thnx for reverting the vandelism on my userpage. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin451 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Just wanna thank you for reverting vandelism on my userpage. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 23:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin451 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I just edited the Oxley High page, as much as some of it was crap, there was some legitimate edits there too, mind if I re-edit so you can see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotesque666 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin451 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

HELP ME!

received a message from you regarding an edit I made on the Heart Attck Grill page. I have been working directly with the owner of the Heart Attack Grill for the past 2 years. It is my job to update the page and make all the information correct and updated. If the way I am editing the page is wrong let me know. If I need to start a new page and have the old page removed let me know. I am new at using Wikipedia so any information would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmotter1 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin451 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar, much appreciated! – ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin451 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV report

Hi Martin, I've dealt with your AIV report concerning Andyjoe7and8 by blocking that account. I have also placed a 3RR warning at the Scam50 account because they appear to have breached that rule a couple days ago but not received the relevant warning. Now they can be blocked if they return to such editing. Can I suggest that you take (if you haven't already) both of these accounts to the sock puppet reporting page for further intervention? Best wishes --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Andyjoe, I have been reviewing his situation based on his unblock request, and it seems to be a case of some minor WP:BITE-ing going on here. I think he genuinely doesn't understand the nature of the changes being made; if you could explain in some more detail at the article talk page why your changes are needed to bring the article into compliance with WP:MOSBIO, it would be helpful. For the record, I fully understand the changes you have made, and I also fully support them, but some details and gentle handling may be helpful here in preventing a new user from getting too frustrated. I also agree that, based on his editing history, his block was fully justified; it was a good block, but I also think that we can work with this editor and "bring him around" quite easily. Could we maybe try to work something out and use this as a "teachable moment" for this new user? --Jayron32 04:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

John Parascandola

Thanks for coming up with a better reference for "Sex, Sin, and Science..." in that article. I've been looking in to the Andyjoe7and8 ‎situation and stopped by that article as I know there have been issues there. When I saw that incredibly weak citation there I felt compelled to remove it. That's the kind of cite I might expect to come across in a Jonas Brothers article, not a living academic's BLP. I feel better knowing that there's a better source. Best regards, Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

TBH when I originally added the Amazon cite, I thought it was good enough given that it was a non controversial claim, and it independently cited the Pendleton prize. I do like adding references to articles, but it can be difficult to find a proper reliable source for some things. Martin451 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Gonzalo Jara

My edit was constructive. The deal fell through this morning, I read it on a Chilean website, thanks

http://www.terra.cl/deportes/index.cfm?accion=futbolnacional&id_reg=1231740 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.15.228.250 (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I really did not think a football club would call itself "Cola Cola". Martin451 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

G.Jara

thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.15.228.250 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Message on my talk page

I'm sorry if I put vandalism on that UFC page. I was trying to revert it and I guess it already was fixed.--MrRogersRidesAgain (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I realised what you had done just afterwards. I removed the warning from your talk page. Martin451 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks.--MrRogersRidesAgain (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear martin,

I just want to know how you find out about my recent change in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_%28number%29#In_mathematics I'm just interested to see how things work around here. Have you checked upon me or you just saw the recent changes in wikipedia or is it something else?

Thank you, Ehsan Baghaki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan baghaki (talk • contribs) 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to stop the vandalism occuring on the page for the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackknight28 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

John Thomas

Hi, I'm wondering why you reverted my edits to the John Floyd Thomas, Jr. article. Thanks--98.232.98.144 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained in the edit summary. The guy is innocent until proven guilty, and wikipedia should not be calling him a serial killer unless he has been convicted of multiple murders, and a reliable reference is provided to back that up. If Thomas were to be described as a serial killer when he has not been convicted, then he can sue wikipedia. Ideally this wikipedia article should not have been written as Thomas has not been tried. Martin451 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. --98.232.98.144 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans woman

My edits to Trans woman are not vandalism. Call of your idiotic bots and take a look at the article before reverting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.63.72 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You have carried on making cut and paste moves even after being asked to stop, and given direction on where you should go to request this move. Cut and paste moves are very damaging to the site, and continuing to do so after being asked to stop is vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hickman Community Hospital

No vandalism intended - I was removing duplicated content per my edit comment. . .Wayne Riddock (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok it was a WP:Copyvio I have undone my revert of your removal. Martin451 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

How is what I posted considered vandalism? What would be the proper way of adding such information?

TeslaAC3030 (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There isn't. We don't add personal contact information on anyone on Wikipedia. --Smashville^talk 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards

Was about to do a manual revert, but you beat me to it! D: Nice job. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your work removing vandalism. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

for repairing my user page. That guy is really a piece of work! Favonian (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

G7 on Cracka lackin

Out of curiosity why'd you add the tag here? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried reverting the removal of a speed tag, and huggle wanted to add a G7 instead, so I let it. Martin451 (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the reverts. Cheers, ZooFari 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Young Democrats

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

The 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis is an ongoing constitutional crisis. President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a so called "non-binding" referendum following the playbook of his friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Zelaya's manifest intention (a "comunicado" was published the same day of the deemed illegal poll, in the nation's official paper "La Gaceta", which ilegally made the poll binding and immediatelty called for a constituent assembly); to call for a Constituent Assembly, which would illegaly impose a new constitution (only congress can call for this) which would let mr. zelaya remain in power indefinitely. Proof that Mr. Zelaya lies when he denies his intent of staying in power (and his desire to dismantle the honduran democracy which is evident with all the steps he took)can be found in youtube. All you have to hear is minute five of the video "La Verdad en Honduras" by fajro86 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAx0g_YazWY Plus, Mr. Zelaya's vehicle in the poll was illegal because only the TSE Tribunal Supremo Electoral can hold such important political "polls". Zelaya wanted to legitimize his desires through a a poll conducted by an organism that he controlled. So he was alas, being judge and part. Although Zelaya's popularity rating is only 30% and an overwhelming percent of Hondurans were against Zelaya's intentions and were defending the constitution in the streets(search for the marches of 100 thousands of white t-shirts in Tegucigalpa and San Pero Sula) Zelaya would nevertheless win on that poll because he controlled the INE Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas. But Congress and the Supreme Court knew what would happed and had deemed the plebiscite unconstitutional and prohibited the execution of such poll. The armed forces of Honduras arrested Zelaya, at his home, on the morning of 28 June 2009, the date of the scheduled vote, which the military chief had refused to coordinate.[18] per order of the country's Supreme Court. Zelaya was held in an airbase outside Tegucigalpa[19] before being flown to San José, Costa Rica.[20] Zelaya's removal took place about an hour before polls were to open and violated several articles of the Constitution. The military had an arrest warrant from the Supreme court, but they arrested him at 5:30 am (arrests can be held only between the hours of 6 am and 6 pm), and there is a controversy because the Constitution prohibits the extradition of Honduran citizens, but many deemit would be unsafe or cause a bloodshed (Zelaya controlled many news networks which encouraged mob violence and there is proof that there are hundreds of citizens from Venezuela and Nicaragua financed and trained to cause deaths)to keep Zelaya in Honduras.

Roberto Micheletti, the former President of the Honduran Congress and a member of the same party as Zelaya, was sworn in as President by the National Congress on the afternoon of Sunday 28 June.[21] for a term that ends on 27 January 2010 [22]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampedranocatracho (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was at the conference this past weekend in Chicago [4] and was trying to update the wikipedia page. I tried to remove the link to the YahooGroup for the Pacific Region since it seems to violate a RegEx rule, but you reverted all of my changes. I'm going to try to work back through the change stack to get to the state where all of the intended edits are included but not the YahooGroup link. I'm new to Wikipedia but trying to be a positive contributor. RobDolin (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was because of this edit here which appeared to be just adding a lot of facebook links to the article. Articles should not link in this way to things like facebook, and the amount of links was quite spammy. If you have to provide links to facebook, they are best in the external links section. Good luck with the article. Martin451 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please be somewhat more careful on NFRA page

User DeadlyAssassin conceded that my edit was not necessarily vandalism. It is my hope that we can actually have discussion of the issues that my edit raises, as it is consistent with Wikipedia conventions. The history of edits having to do with "Rod Martin" issues is long, given that the controversy began with Rod Martin being banned from Wikipedia use after excessive use of sockpuppets for self-publicization and Wikipedia election fraud. The fact that there has been no consensus after mediation of the NFRA entry does not justify accusations of vandalism or disruptiveness, or repeated reversions based on those accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User:DeadlyAssassin has still reverted your edits on this article. this edit clearly has point of view problems and contains wording that is clearly disruptive. On wikipedia you cannot write "Martin, a failed congressional candidate...." Martin451 (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that DeadlyAssassin continues to revert my edits. But he does not satisfactorily explain why. Instead, he provides a string of justifications that are clearly inapplicable. Perhaps you could explain why a brief biographical statement about an organization's president is inappropriate to an organization's page? After all, this is followed on many political organization's pages. Surely the rules are not different for NFRA. Furthermore, you might explain why listing someone's former profession (lawyer) or former political history (lost a congressional election) are irrelevant for a biographical statement about the head of a political organization. Despite your prohibition, most people would agree that political history is relevant to a political organization! Furthermore, I am getting tired of the lawless practice of editors saying "Oh, I reverted it because someone else wanted it reverted." You have done this with respect to DA, and DA has done this with respect to other editors. Why don't you instead discuss the substantive issue: whether it is encyclopedic to include a one- or two-sentence biographical statement of the president of the organization. And since it is clearly encyclopedic, you should either leave it alone or suggest an alternative. What you should clearly not do is continue the practice of mindless reverting of edits without any real explanation. 68.46.254.47 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I watch recent changes on wikipedia. When I saw the changes you made on this article, I saw that they were unsuitable for a WP:BLP. I did not know that someone had already reverted your edits. However that does not change the fact that what you added to the article was totally unsuitable for a BLP. Martin451 (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only conclusion I would draw here is that if you really think that the political or professional history of someone is unsuitable for a BLP, you completely misunderstand how Wikipedia works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.254.47 (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Policital and professional histories are suitable provided they are unbaised and conform to a neutral point of view, and is cited. Calling someone "Failed" is not neutral. Martin451 (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When a candidate loses an election, he or she is commonly referred to as a "failed" candidate in English. I am inferring that you think "failed" is a non-neutral term, but you are incorrect. In this context, "failed" means "got fewer votes than some other opponent." It is an appropriate and encyclopedic term, and is typically used as a synonym for the clunkier adjective "unsuccessful" in this context.--68.46.254.47 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

your msg

sorry mate if i wrote on a wrong place, you deleted my name change request on August 17, why did you do that? wiki said i should do so.

maiko zulu article? i authored that article, i don't know what you re talking about.

cheeeeez, user:fngosa —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Thank you

that was good advise! thanks (MYSIGNATURE IS A SIGNATURE 00:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs)

Sorry!

I noticed that you were reverting a couple of my edits that you did not like. I apologize if you did not find these edits constructive, but, personally, I thought it added a nice touch to your user talk page. Anyway, I hope you accept my apology! --74.12.28.7 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Strange, huh? Anyway, thanks for the help. Regards Tiderolls 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert here as well. I have seen this kind of vandalism before, and it is not easy to spot if you are not expecting it. Martin451 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The reversion you've made

"TO answer your question, the edit I reverted was where you linked "child molester" to Muhammed." -- Thanks for answering my question. For the record, I don't really like this reversion, but I can live with it. 98.234.126.251 (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this change, I did not read that it was your own comment you were editing. However I would still consider reverting something like that even if I knew it was your own comment. Martin451 (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixing Copyvio articles

I have made several revisions to Saint Thomas Hospital, Middle Tennessee Medical Center, Chest Pain Network, and Baptist Hospital on the temp pages that were set up. I have also left messages in the discussion pages for each. Any idea when an admin would review and then move those new rewrites to the article pages?

EmmaMae (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Sorry I was just learning how to use the rollback. I was just giving roll back right and i was just making sure i was using right.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks i just wanted to fix things but i can see where your coming from.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK no harm done and ill take a look at that.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

reversion

I am confused on to why you removed the Tarintino public appearance and pre speech from the reception of the film (Inglourious Basterds). I think it stands as an important process in the film's release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.149.62 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes like that need to be cited, even if it is Tarintino. Martin451 (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson

Hello!

The edits that I made to Carina Axelsson involve removing hyperbole and articles which are not translated into English. My area of "specialty" as it were is minor German royalty, mediatised houses. Ms. Axelsson is an author of vanity press books and a live-in companion, and that's kind of it. (Above by User:ProperlyRaised).

It looks to me like you removed a most of the article because you wanted it deleted, and is was kept as a result of a previous AFD. Just because links and references are not in English, is not an excuse to remove them. Martin451 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Axelsson's most significant contributions are a romance with a prince and vanity press books; those remain intact although their notability is questionable. There have been a number of discussions regarding the inclusion of the articles which are not in English, and while I have translated a few, the repeated inclusion of the non-English articles, particularly in the Swedish and German equivalents of the National Enquirer, are not reliable sources but fall along the lines of gossip, fluffification, hyperbole, and public relations. The major sources regarding minor royalty such as Almanach de Gotha or The Peerage provide information regarding the royal part of Axelsson's life hve no mention of her. Articles in English of the gossip variety, such as her family's mental health history in California, have been excluded as gossip. (I'm going to delete that last sentence after tomorrow since it *is* intrusive - or please feel free to delete it yourself.) Thanks and best regards, PR PR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

Fernando Morientes

Hi, i was just wondering why you removed my contribution on the fernando morientes piece, as i thought it was a useful contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.245.172 (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Because your edit was blatent vandalism. Martin451 (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Port of Saint John

Hello. Trying ot understand why my edit was denied when Bayside and Eastport, Maine in the same pargraph are permited to have links? Sorry I am very new and trying to figure this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PortofSaintJohn (talk • contribs) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Internal links are acceptable, but you appear to be linking to an external website. Just because there may be similar links does not make it acceptable to put your links in like this. Martin451 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. As I said. Just starting today. I am building a wiki for our Port but I am learning.

Warning

Thanks for your message, but as you can see I am just reverting this other guy that keeps changing my original change which I think is perfectly valid. All he has done it argue and swear at me. Gold Scratch (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have warned him but he just keeps going. Gold Scratch (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you are both edit warring, between you, you have made over 100 edit, all warring over one comma, now that is WP:Lame Martin451 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe the plumber

Why did you revert my edit to Joe the Plumber. I put 13 references of people calling him Joe the sucker. Are you politically motivated? It is not enough to not like what is true... people call him Joe the Sucker. If you don't like it... tough luck. But you can't go around reverting things because you are an ideologue.

There are significant WP:BLP issues with calling him the sucker, and a quick check of a couple of sources shows that they are hardly reliableMartin451 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not calling him a sucker, it says that detractors call him "Joe the Sucker" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.63.139 (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

But your sources appear to be google searches and blogs, they are not reliable enough for a claim like that. Martin451 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How is a blog not enough to say that people call him that when there they call him Joe the Sucker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.63.139 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A blog is just one persons view, and some of the comments on the news stories are from anonymous people, it is not enough to base part of a WP:BLP article on. Especially when the view is contentious. Martin451 (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned you that you are edit warring, let the people decide You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

RMS Titanic

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

So I suppose that means that you can delve through all the entries and assume who knows what language? The usage by whomever is editing are British deviants. How am I suppose to respect others entries when my edits are innocent and well meaning and are trounced upon? I suppose you'd like to use the British deviant artefact instead of artifact. Are you serious? This was a world wide tragedy and I'm 99.9% sure any reader would know exactly what I'm talking about or wouldn't even notice a difference. It's 2009! Thanks for making me feel third-class.

Patriot4444 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Patriot4444

You should not change between English variations unless there is a special need to. e.g. If I wrote an article on a famous US figure in British English, I would expect someone to change it to US. However this was a British ship, and you are changing the language to US. If most readers will understand what you are talking about, then they should also understand British English. Your edits were undone (not trounced upon), not only by me, but by at least one other person, and I left a note on your talk page, however you continued to change entries after this. Martin451 (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that was a bit WP:BITE, I really hope I have not put you off editing wikipedia. Martin451 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia.*

I'd say that this entire article is written in plain English. The only differences are words such as paneling (panelling) travelling (traveling) colour (color) recognise (recognize) and so on. It's amazing how the spell check wants to correct me even though I know how the word is properly spelled. Usage of the s versus the z is a deviant. It should be the more recognizable to avoid further "tamperings". I specifically try to avoid editing and I would hardly call what I do "vandalism". I started out with typos that you and your "admins" so politely overlooked. But somehow I'm punished for doing what I think is right. This article is clearly not for British eyes only and should be written as such. Usage of the word colour shows clear favoritism. Or should I say favouritism? No, you and your "cohorts" will not stop me from enjoying wikipedia. But you did allow me to waste a good portion of an hour so. Thank you for that. If I wanted to do that I would have gone to youtube. Cheers!

Patriot4444 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Patriot4444

The article is written for anyone to read in the same way articles with American spellings are not just for Americans to read. What makes you think that your version of English is the correct version and British English is the "deviation"? Martin451 (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Merriam Webster's Dictionary perhaps? I never said it was "my" version. For ex. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recognise

Patriot4444 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Patriot4444

Then we have the definition on wikitionary, wikt:recognise, which claims recognize is the US varient of the English recognise, and recognise is the Commonwealth varient of the US recognise. Martin451 (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

War on Terror

Thanks for the revert ... however, the article is as you reverted it, inconsistent Totals, etc do not include the Israeli actions, and, other than in extreme partisan minds, those are separate conflicts. If you cannot see that, please stay off this page and keep your partisanship off wikipedia.

THANKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.87.38 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tamarind sauce

Hello Martin451, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Tamarind sauce - a page you tagged - because: A7 can't be applied to redirects. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake Wartenberg 04:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

thx. Martin451 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

CDrive655

Can you redo my good faith edits to mickey and open season please? Thanks. CDrive655 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No. At the moment I think a disinterested person should look at it, and redo the edits if needed. Martin451 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

I beg your pardon, but what are you reasons for warning me? why do you or someone else remove my editing? i signed it, what else do you want? What are all these flags and warnings about? When I see a lie I call it, why do you protect it? Please identify yourself if you are a moderator with name email or number. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlirianEagle (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope neither you nor the editor to which this page belongs minds but I would like to reply because you seem to be quite overwhelmed.

• You were warned because you have been in an 'edit war' which basically means you have been re-adding deleted content a lot of times, which is not allowed on WP because it is disruptive. Such behaviour usually results in a short ban.
• The edits you have made to the Epirus page do not belong there because it is a disambiguation page, which means it is like a directory to other articles and therefore does not need the detailed information you are trying to add, that is why your edits keep getting deleted.
• The information you try to be adding appears to be in the articles in which they actually belong, I have checked. If you feel that any article requires more content (not disambiguation pages) then go ahead and add it, but you must provide a reference or you will likely find the information deleted.
• Do not ask editors to provide their personal information, and likewise no editor will request yours. There is no need for it, you can easily contact editors through their talks. I consider your demands for personal information to be a personal attack and if you do it again I will report you to admin.
• If you want to post something on a user's talk page please click 'new section' at the top and enter your comments that way, at the moment you are just adding comments in the middle of talks which is very annoying.
• You only need to sign your name on talk pages, not in articles.
• May I suggest you go to Help:Contents to learn about using talks, editing articles, civility and sources so that you do not run into further problems at WP.

Sorry, Martin451, to jump in here but I've been following this user and have been trying to get to the bottom of his edits. RaseaC (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but who are these people that obviously have more rights than me in deciding? Why are my comments erased? I understand your warnings fully but they have no basis and you are only discriminating me, nothing else. It simply doesn't make sense, why you and someone else warn me for editing, and either erase or allow someone else to erase? how can i contribute without erasing? i never erased anyone elses words? what rights do you have to erase mine, and who gives you these rights please? I hope you understand, and stop this discrimination you are showing towards me. I am not judging you nor do you have any right judging me when you don't know the topic in which I am commenting. I look forward to your reply. Regards. --IlirianEagle (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, please reply to a comment on a talk page immediately below the comment, not anywhere else on the page or people are unlikely to see your comments. Any editor has the right to delete anything they believe to be incorrect, in the wrong place, vandalism etc. etc. If you wish to add something to WP then you must provide a source otherwise it will be deleted. Your revision contradicts an existing part of the article that is sourced, that is why it is being deleted. If we are wrong, provide evidence! Also, please stop signing your name (by typing 4 ~) in articles, that is only necessary in talk pages. I really think you should look at the help pages I have already shown you as they are better at explaining things than I am. RaseaC (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the warm welcome, and for correcting the coding I was stumbling over. Even though I'm an experienced copyeditor, it's quite daunting to be editing WP pages for the first time. Thanks for the info and encouragement. Nrehnby (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now completed a thorough copyedit of the Jaycee Dugard page. Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks again for support and encouragement. Nrehnby (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard request

Just as the news trucks have Walnut Street in Antioch to go on to other breaking stories, contributions to this page seem to have fallen off. As a newbie, I'm not sure what the process is here, perhaps request for review? I'm messaging several of the experienced editors who have contributed to this page and asking you to drop by. Some of the outstanding issues are (as discussed) are, but are not limited to: 1. How's the edit? Someone should review the newbie's work, yes? 2. Can we remove the tags now? Or does the page still need work? Being specific and constructive would be awesome. 3. How are we doing on BLP? In my edit, I removed quite a bit of private information and controversial/unreferenced materials, following guidelines. Too much? Should more be cut? (e.g. There is a Garrido rape case mentioned, for which he was not convicted. Does BLP require that it be cut?) All this and more... This is my first significant contribution: feedback appreciated (both on the edit, and the process). Nrehnby (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lower Queen Anne

Hi Martin451, I'm just inquiring on how I would prove that the edit I made to this page is accurate and coming from the source. The only publications online are via myspace, which I can understand isn't a very good tool for verifying authenticity. If I have limited online publications, how else can I prove the information I'm entering is accurate and from the source? Myth M3thod (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well firstly there is a conflict of interest with adding yourself to an article like this, and secondly if the only source is myspace, then you probably don't meet the notability requirements to be on wikipedia. Martin451 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Can you explain this rollback? GrooveDog (oh hai.) 21:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that was really bad of me, I was trying to remove what I reverted back in. Thankyou for pointing this out to me. Martin451 (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, not a problem. Have a good one. :) GrooveDog (oh hai.) 22:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing:)

When an newcomer cant take advice without attacking personally like he did later on on my talk page (which i reverted as vandalism) i will ofcourse react. If that was wrong of me, perhaps. But as i wrote on the persons talk page i will not bather giving the person advice as he/she is taking some friendly advice as an attack on them personally. I think we have a possible trouble maker on our hands but hey..let see how it works out.:)--Judo112 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets just drop the whole thing as i will not be a part of the blame game.. or meta discussion..:)--Judo112 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Green Pest Control

Martin -

The link that you removed seemed to be perfectly legit. It was in reference to the claims being made on that page about Green Pest Control. I did not link it to Bulwark Pest Control or Orkin or Terminix. I linked it to a page debunking the claims surrounding green pest control. The problem with that entire page is that it does not do just to the truth. The truth is that the term "Green Pest Control" really doesn't mean a thing. It's not commentary, its the truth. I know, I was at the green pest control summit this past year. They put it correctly there "Green Washing". The organizations that you are promoting there and their "certifications" are for making the most "green" they can. They should simply state on there "Pay me your dues and you get a Green Sticker. No questions asked."

Thanks for removing the truth.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.166.109 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Martin - After reviewing your recent edits.... all of them today. I can appreciate the crap you put up with here and the vandalism of webpages on Wikipedia. I apologize if I seemed short with you on the green pest control subject. It just annoys me to no end how certain organizations in the pest control industry get away with such blatant misconfiguration of the truth. I thought I was using reputable pages to help spread some light on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.166.109 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

I've upgraded your request to temporary full protection. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

OK sorry it was because he blanked the whole page and I didn't believe it was copyvio. --Brandon5485 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...interesting proposal, this, but kinda scary at the same time. It definitely didn't need to stay. Regards Tiderolls 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie O, etc.

RE: User:Martin451 and User_talk:114.76.21.137.

You both seem to be redirecting articles to completely separate? articles without any discussion on either talk pages? Why? _Met^ty 02:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:114.76.21.137 is a sock of user:Officalbehindbigbrotheraustralia. He created a copy and paste move article with additional serious WP:BLP issues. I undid those moves which you appear to have undone, re adding the WP:BLP issues. Martin451 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid the edits because both articles linked to each other, a circle of redirection. That, and there was no discussion of EITHER redirect, yours or 114...'s on either of the talk pages. _Met^ty 02:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there was no discussion, but one page was well established, and the other was a new page, created by a new user. I was trying to undo the issues before replying to your message. Martin451 (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't worry about it! Thanks for that, though. Sorry if I frustrated you at all, I'm still a bit new to all this. Thanks for writing! _Met^ty 00:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime

Hi Martin, if you read the last two four years discussions on the templates talk page, there is prety much consensus that it should be subst only template. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

Look at the Lifetime talk page, there is no consensus to change between Lifetime and default sort. According to the talk page of lifetime, people should not be edit warring between the two, which is what the bots seem to be doing by removing all the lifetime templates. Martin451 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi. I'm not sure if you'd check responses to anons' talk pages, but I'm not a vandal. The edit I made to Digimon Frontier was actually an attempt to revert vandalism that literallly took up (and still takes up) a third of the page. Maybe the sheer amount of text that needed to be removed to revert it set something off; I don't really know, but all I know is that Resident Evil and Street Fighter have absolutely nothing to do with Digimon. --168.103.147.114 (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Thankyou for telling me. Martin451 (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

im unsourced

you can search anywhere on the interent that this information is inded true and wikipedia is not here to decide what is positive or negative it is simply to tell the facts

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.226.205 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 September 2009

Yes wikipedia is here to tell the facts, but they should be reliably sourced. It is not up to the reader to go and research an article to see if it is true. Martin451 (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

See the core policy on verifiability  Chzz  ►  21:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Carrs

Yes, I apologize, I just realized that after reverting. Since it looks to be a duplicate, I just nominated it for deletion. Connormah (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all of your great efforts in reverting vandalism. Connormah (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For once again keeping an eye on my talk page. Keep up the good work Tiderolls 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Help

hi martin i need help learning this wiki editing are there any easier tools plug-ins to do so this raw plain wiki is confusing that is why for example i user dreamweaver and not BBedit how can i get better? thanks tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.35.252 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to create an account for your self, and if you are using Firefox, select wikiEd in your preferences. This will colour the editing window. Please also use the article talk page to discuss the quality of articles, and not put comments in the main article about the article. Martin451 (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

apostrophe

Hello, I've noticed that a large number of editors for Wikipedia don't use the correct application of the possesive apostrophe, indeed they go out of their way to remove it on many occasions. Here's a small style guide. Hope you accept it in the spirit it's given, I don't mean to offend.

Possesive apostrophes are really very simple:
If the word possessed is singular then it's apostrophe-S ('s)
If the word is plural then S-apostrophe (s').

An exception to this rule is if the word is plural without ending in s, such as "men" or "children". Then the apostrophe remains within the word and is apostrophe-S ('s).

Some examples: The boy's book (book owner by A boy)
The boys' book (book owned by more than one boy)
The child's book (book owned by one child)
The children's book (plural but not ending in s, so book owned by more than one child)
Butcher's Shop (a shop possessed/owned by a Butcher)
Newsagent's Shop (shop owned/managed by a newsagent)
Note: a newsagent is a person, a newsagent's shop is the building

Many of these phrases can be contracted without losing their meaning but the possessive apostrophe should remain,
examples from above:
The boy's - something owned by one boy
the boys' - something owned by more than one boy
The Butcher's - something owned by a butcher e.g a shop, a knife
The Newsagent's - something owned by a newsagent e.g. a shop, a magazine

Newsagents (without the possesive apostrophe) is the plural of newsagent (a person) and means more than one newsagent (people, not a building).

In many cases particularly in Wikipedia pages about towns and cities, the editor or original writer lists shops and building on the local high street. In amongst the list of buildings: Town Hall, Supermarket etc comes the grammatical incorrect Newsagents or Butchers. These are people not buildings, with the correct building noun being Newsagent's (Shop) or Butcher's (Shop). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.186.163 (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Template:Anglophone states

An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:Anglophone states , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.  —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Applebaum

I', not the only one adding a Neutral point of view, properly (multiple) sourced, entry. I added it. Others modified it. You removed it wholesale. The event is undisputed. Some of the citations are in her own hand. Leave it alone - DISCUSS it on the talk page, explaining what's wrong with the entry. I repeat, it's fact and it's sourced.

Do not remove other peoples entries without discussion or something to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.1 (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording violates WP:BLP, also it gives undue weight to one incident. If you want to re add it, then take it to the talk page. Martin451 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk page? Same to you. Explain, on the article talk page, why it violates WP:BLP. I'm not the only one who has no problem with it. The SENTENCE is NPOV. It is properly cited. Stop removing contributions. CanuckMike (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In light of your campaign to scrub Anne Applebaum free of the widespread criticism of her, your userbox stating that you find censorship offensive is hilarious. Good one! Krakatoa (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Being against censorship does not mean I am for biased articles. A biased article, like what you have been doing with Applebaum's, is as bad as a censored article. They both achieve the same results, and stop the reader from being able to form a proper picture of events. The text which you added, is over four times longer than the one sentence dealing with her Pulitzer prize winning book, now which do you think is more important? Why do you think that too of her opinion pieces out of possibly thousands in her career warrent so much attention? Martin451 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation? Not even close. You continue to throw out accusations without substantiation while engaging in a blatant edit war. I echo Krakatoa's comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.1 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!

Dear Martin451, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 15:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)