User talk:CanadianLinuxUser/Archives1

Disruptive Edits

I have zero idea what you are talking about "disruptive edits"- disrupting what? Your idealized version of John Lennon's life? I have taken great care and a lot of research in reading and transcribing pages, chapters and some text from the actual book. You may not like what is there but you have no right to delete it OR to warn me for inserting meaningful, valid and true information in an article about that book. You are the one being disruptive and I'll thank you not to threaten me. You are abusive and completely out of line here. 71.100.13.236 (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well now you've reverted it all back again? What you are on about? I agreed with you on the plagiarism and rewrote it? What the heck are you doing? Kindly remove the warning from my talk page, then, if nothing is amiss. 71.100.13.236 (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. Book Burning I know you rolled back what looked like vandalism... but this user had actually made 4 changes, some of which were vandalism.. and the net overall change was a good one (the linked page actually does use the Qin spelling). BananaFiend (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Re: J. K. Rowling No problem, it happens, and as it turns out, you helped me find some sockpuppets of a user that's been causing us no end of trouble lately, so it all worked out quite well in the long run. Welcome to Wikipedia! Hersfold (t/a/c) 13:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) April 2008 Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Day of Defeat: Source: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 09:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Lyneham HS No, don't worry. I only reverted a few revisions back as there were multiple instances of vandalism that needed clearing. Thanks for helping and feel free to continue! ><RichardΩ612 13:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Mascara Article Revert I am wondering why you labeled my change of the word "emo" to "scene" as vandalism, the word emo is a horrid (extremely stereotyped) word, people cannot be emo (as it is a music genre) and the proper word is "Scenester" or "Scene Fashion". I felt it was necessary due to these facts, the word emo is quite offensive and I just wanted to help stop some of the stereotypical things about the fashion. I did not revert your post on the Mascara article of April 2nd. Please check the history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mascara&action=history --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Vandalism Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! It's generally not appropriate to only issue a "final" warning to users, this is consisered bitey, please try to follow the standard warning procedure. Cheers. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 13:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Seems the admin blocked them anyway. Just a note for future anyways. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC) He had a vandalism ONLY account.... warnings were a waste of time in my opinion, however... I will curb my enthusiasm ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It's great to be enthusiastic, and I don't want to change that :) I just wanted to let you know we should try warning them with a level 1 - 4 warning, instead of jumping straight to a level 4 warning. Thanks for your good work. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Hey there. I would just like to say thanks for reverting some of the vandalism that was on my page today. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) All part of the service ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Wasn't this a bit heavy? Wasn't a level 3 warning [1] a bit heavy for the first warning in two months? Philip Trueman (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) The only edits ever made were vandalism.... [2] I call 'em as I see them. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I agree level 1 and 2 warnings are just a waste of time when a user has a history of absolute vandalism--Wiki-page-protector (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC) martin scorsese the only change i made to the scrosese page was changing the name of the film shutter island to ashecliffe. Seeing as how the article lists both films as being released in 2008 in different parts of the article, and the article for ashecliffe says it is based on the novel "shutter island", i assumed they were the same movie. I don't see how that constitutes vandalism. That would be my bad.... the article has some vandalism and I just saw your anonymous ip and thought it was the same that was vandalising like the previous history shows. [3] My apologies. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Question Hello CanadianLinuxUser, I noticed you do a lot of vandalism-reverting. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights for you to use alongside Twinkle? Acalamari 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you that would be appreciated --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Rollback granted. :) Acalamari 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) AIV Please make sure that vandals are properly warned before posting at AIV, skipping the warning process and just stating that they are a "vandalism only account" after a handful of edit is not ideal. TigerShark (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Yet the fact remains, that is what the account is.... as per the Contributions and Deleted contributions. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Do you mean that because all of the edits are vandalism, that they are a vandalism only account and should not be warned? TigerShark (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC) No... he/she was warned just not by me... I realize one must assume good faith most of the time, but not everyone must warn the person 3 times before being reported. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC) You said that their contributions made them a vandalism only account, can you explain why? Also, they had not been warned at all when you posted to AIV, they had only had a couple of speedy notices, which are not the same as vandalism warnings. There is no need for 3 warnings, although there is also no need to rush to have every vandal blocked without a fair warning, but a user should certainly receive at least one warning which tells them that they risk being blocked. TigerShark (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) There were articles that were created (and deleted by admins) that only contained nonsense and profanity. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Where was the user warned about vandalism and told that they would be blocked if they continued? Also, why do you feel their contributions made them a vandalism only account TigerShark (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) His ONLY contributions were nonsense and profanity... what else except vandalism could they be? He was warned here: [4] --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Which bring me back to my earlier question, do you consider him a vandalism only account because all of his edits were vandalism? For the warning please provide a diff, rather than just the page, because the only warning I see was given two minutes after you posted to AIV. TigerShark (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC) "Do you consider him a vandalism only account because all of his edits were vandalism?" Yes I do. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) OK, so almost every vandal on Wikipedia would be a vandalism only account by that definition, because the first few edits from almost every vandal are vandalism. It would seem that the only way to not be a vandalism only account is to make constructive edits before starting to vandalise. Do you agree? TigerShark (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC) I believe I do agree. I am also in agreement that I should have give better warning to the user before reporting him/her. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) OK, thanks. TigerShark (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Good faith edit marked as vandalism? Hello. Is there a particular reason you reverted this edit and marked it as vandalism [5]? As Cathy McMorris Rodgers is the correct name for the article in question, bypassing the redirect looks like a perfectly valid good faith edit. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry about that one... seems I saw one too many vandals that day ;-)--CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC) REMOVED vandalism marked as vandalism I actually removed vandalism to the Ann M. Martin page. Out of curiosity, why was this marked as vandalism? Sorry, You did indeed... I'll have another coffee before I check for vandals. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) 216.102.75.114 Hi - I took action on this AIV account and blocked, but want to clarify something. On your report, you said 'vandalism directly after the release of a block'. This IP had no previous blocks. Can you clarify? - Philippe 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I'm using Twinkle and used the wrong checkbox.... It was supposed to be after final warning. ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) OK, I figured that's what it was. :-) Let's be careful about that, eh? There's a lot of that going on lately, and it sometimes looks like people are trying to artificially bolster a "case" to have a vandal blocked. I truly believe it was nothing but an accident in your case, though, because I've never seen a report with any issues come from you before. Thanks for all that you do! - Philippe 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks... It seems like a competition at times as to who gets the vandalism first... who gets the user banned first.... anyways... I'll make sure I check the right box :-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) It's a great toolbox, isn't it? I use it TONS. The other one I like is at User:Persian Poet Gal/AdminToolbox. - Philippe 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I'll have to wait for that one... I'm just a newbie vandal fighter... I'll steal that one in a few if ever I am worthy of adminship. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, I think it's got a lot of great uses for non-admins. It's an easy way to find all the various pages and have them appear in one consolidated place. Of course, you're right that there's a lot of admin specific stuff as well. In any case, thanks for everything and keep up the good work! :-) - Philippe 15:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) User page By the way, I see that you're taking some vandalism to your userpage. Some folks find that it's easiest to semi-protect that when they intend to do a lot of vandal-thwacking. If you'd like me to semi-protect your page, just let me know... - Philippe 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I'll keep an eye on it... for now the vandal counter is more of a joke from me to me... if it gets worse I'll give you a holler... thanks for the help. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Floyd McKissick, Jr. Why do you ask? Am I not free to edit a page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbm3rd (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Although I feel that party 1 has a conflict and clearly only wants to add negative info, i will not undo any changes. However, I will add positive information that is truthful. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbm3rd (talk • contribs) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) And what the other party is doing is not considered Vandalism? You dont feel there actions are considered an "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". What is the definition of the "integrity of Wikipedia"? Please answer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbm3rd (talk • contribs) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) The "other party" is adding cited information from a valid source. [[6]] --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Chamblee High School Chamblee High School's page was not vandalized, it was notable information that needed to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.8.246.181 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC) "Awesome students" is not noteworthy enought for Wikipedia, but thanks for playing. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Request can you fix the "Iran" page i was randomly browsing and someone must've abused the portal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.47.86 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC) I do not see any errors. You should be able to create an account or just edit yourself if you see an error. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Funny Hello! I don't know how many times today I was too slow reverting someone because you were there 2 seconds before me. Similarly, I think I also left 5 or 6 vandalism warnings at the same time that you did. Anyways, I thought it was funny. Keep it up! Peace! SWik78 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC) LOL The more the merrier ;-) Ditto to you. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Shannon Paku Article Hey, thanks for blocking vandalism on this article. It seems that two users enjoy vandalising articles which users have spent a bit of time creating. --El Chuddy (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC) All part of the service.... (Tips hat) ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC) I was pretty annoyed to see this - I bet the subject wouldn't be too happy. Can we block the user who has several warnings already, or do we have to wait for vandalism again [seems that he's gone quiet!] --El Chuddy (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC) I give one warning to a repeat offender then I report immediately if he/she persists. Best we can do... --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC) not surprising that there is no user page.... :-| --El Chuddy (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Both those disruptive users are now banned indefinitely. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Go Steady You just reverted back in vandalism. [7] Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC) My appologies... I'll double check next time. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC) No probs, just go easy with the automated tools. Pedro :  Chat  20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC) BME (website) I am removing incorrect information. Posting on the BME wiki page that there is "Drama" with posts that do not accurately reflect the situation do nothing but cause damage to the owners of the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.17.115 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Instead of simply removing information, continue to state that a conflict occurred and is resolved or still ongoing. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC) What drama occurred? Do you have a reliable source? Evidence? Verifiability? No, you don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.17.115 (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC) The word "drama" is your word in this page... not mine... but that is irrelevant... "something" occurred and a conflict occurred. To erase it as if it never happened is incorrect. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC) User talk:128.243.220.21 I was cleaning the user talk of my own IP! 128.243.220.21 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC) With the quantity of vandalism that the account is responsible for, I think it should remain present until proof of constructive edits can be established. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Your user toolbox Hope you don't mind, but I have lifted your lovely user toolbox, a little modified, for use on my own userpage (suitably credited). I've been contemplating something like it for a while but my coding skills are on a par with my chainsaw-juggling abilities, with similar results when attempted. -- Karenjc 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I stole it fare and square... so can you ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Umm Why did you delete my correction in the Assassin's Creed page? The castle in the game is called Masyaf, just like it was/is called in real-life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.11.121 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) You removed too much of the citation.... not just the unknown name. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) The name isn't unknown. The whole text I deleted is just bullshit. Please, prove that what it said before is correct? The stronghold is called Masyaf MANY times in the game, and it says so in the map and options. You can google Masyaf, to see where it was, and that it was indeed the headquarter of the Syrian sect of the Assassins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.11.121 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC) For the moment I will take your word for it. It looked like vandalism as your IP was never used and you removed lots of text. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Some proof. Okay, you can ask some people who actually played AC. Here's some proof. http://guides.gamepressure.com/assassinscreed/guide.asp?ID=4254 http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Masyaf http://www.mahalo.com/Assassin's_Creed_Masyaf_Flags —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.11.121 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks For the revert on my userpage... vandals, eh? ;) *sigh* —αlεx•mullεr 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC) All part of the service (Tips Hat) ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Vandalism The vandalism you made on the Team Final Boss page was very inappropriate. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Team_Final_Boss&diff=207922591&oldid=207347433 Wikipedia is not a place for emo bashing. Save it for somewhere else. You clearly an established user, and I hope that there is simply some misunderstanding here --PokeOnic (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Oh nevermind I see that you just made an honest mistake. Try and check what it is you are reverting before actually doing it ;) --PokeOnic (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry 'bout that... it looked like vandalism when one looks at it quickly... but I see what you mean now. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Liz Fuller Why did you accuse me of vandalizing the Liz Fuller page? 87.127.154.99 is clearly not my IP address. 207.112.26.247 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Wrong copy and paste... you did however vandalize the Manuel Noriega article. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC) No I didn't. The information on his conversion was in the wrong chronological order.207.112.26.247 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC) It seemed like a massive delete when I looked quickly... I have placed it back to your version. Apologies for the mix up, lots of vandals using simple IP addresses. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Unconstructive? Perhaps my edit seems "unconstructive" to you, but its informative, encyclopedic and as valid as everything that comes before it. I would take it you have a problem with the substance of my addition. My addition was not meant to be "constructive" in building the legend of John Lennon, which perhaps is what you meant. I'm striving for completeness and truth. "Constructive" seems to be pretty subjective way to talk about an addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.13.236 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Cite your source for the changes you wish to do, then you will be permitted. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Talk Ayn Rand Hi, you reverted my recent edits to Talk Ayn Rand. They were in response to Edward G Nilges comments about me which were false, and secondly he is a blocked user spinoza1111 editing using his IP address to avoid the block and filling up the talk page with personal attacks. Ethan a dawe (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I did... and fixed them right away after a noticed my error. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Carefree (chant) Why did you revert my addition to Carefree (chant)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The C of E (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC) An error on my part... fixed it. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC) CSD tags Hello. I deleted the page Golden finch, which you tagged for speedy deletion, as a vandalism page. However, you tagged it as 'author blanked or requested", which seems to be incorrect. Please be more careful in applying the correct tags, even for nonsense pages like this one. Fram (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Got it... I'll double check my tags. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Your userpage is quite protected now. :-) - Philippe 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks you Sir.  ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Page blanking by author Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because quite often the author has blanked his own page, as was the case with The history of black holes just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Got it. Weird... but I got it. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC) John W. Scherer Vandalism Please check the John W. Scherer article. I have reverted your reverts, since I think them to be invalid, but will not tamper with the article again. if you look, you will notice that my edits involve several items . . . 1) adding an infobox . . . standard for biographical articles. 2) Adding the {{Persondata}} tag fot the Persondata project, 3) deleting the line "Video Professor has made more than 100 million dollars selling instructional videos" from under the "External Links" section because it was a repeat of the same line under the "In the News and the Community" section and 4) adding links to the town the man was from, and a few other relevant links. If you still think after reviewing my edits that they are unconstructive, then I won't argue.Take care. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The edits were an an error and I did revert right after. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC) No prob, dude. Cheers. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Revert How was my edit unconstructive? I added better examples..... A quick look on my part and it seemed liked vandalism... I replaced your edits. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC) American Flyers revert You have reverted my recent edit to American Flyers as you have deem it to be "unconstructive". Please explain why. My edit improved the article slightly as I amended the plot details so as to provide better wording (the previous edit implied that one of the main characters had a mental health problem) and also prevented the entry from giving away the twist to the end of the film. I also removed a trivia section (which are discouraged on Wiki to begin with) as it did not make any sense, it was not notable information, and did not seem to be true (it certainly did not give any sources). I believe that you have jumped the gun a little here so please revert the edit you made.79.66.25.227 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC) It seems I misread... I have undone my edits. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you. 79.66.25.227 (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Good Faith Edit You reverted an edit to the article "Kate Hudson (activist)" I mearly added the opposite views that people have about her views and policies, this is a subject noone has commented on yet. or do they all get reverted? What I said was the truth like it or not and her views are ... insane and completely biased in favour of the communist nuclear states, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.160.143 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC) "Communist hippie" is not an unbiased point of view... but thanks for playing. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The Pigeon Detectives I left a note on the talk page of The Pigeon Detectives about a revert on one of my edits that you made that was actually back to vandalism. Looking at your talk page, I can see this has happened quite a few times. You're doing good work in removing vandalism, but perhaps if you're not sure it would be better to leave it alone? Someone with enough time to check it out and fix it will usually be along shortly. :) TheSuperunknown (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I noticed the edit I made was incorrect and corrected it immediately. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC) USS Springfield (SSN-761) I noticed you recently flagged as vandalism some edits to the Springfield entry. While some of the personnel information is likely vandalism, the portions about the cost and time overruns were correct. You can look at the shipyard's archived newsletters here: http://www.gdeb.com/news/2003archives.html and see that as originally scheduled it was to take 12 v. 19 months. I also tend to agree that the article is no longer a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfwall (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I had no choice but to revert. The edits of the banned user were... frankly just attacks and any content was lost in there. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Regarding Larry Wade article There is no reason to have the addition about some random high school hurdler in there. It isn't relevant to Larry Wade, at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.219.102 (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC) You are correct... looking quickly I thought someone had deleted a paragraph from the biography for no reason. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Krajina people Krajina poeple were realy existing. They were diferent from serbs in many things. Serbian and montenegrian's have much more in common then first two. Fact is that Krajinas are now vanished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.101.243 (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC) The reason your edits were removed was they were so poor written they seemed like vandalism. I recommend you seek additional help with the English language if you choose to contribute to this article. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Unconstructive I am going to revert the change you made to my entry as I believe it is not constructive to intentionally leave information out of wikipedia articles. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.217.190 (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Looking it a second time, I agree. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I just added a reference for it. Not sure if I did it right, I was just copying the coding from another reference later on, but with a different target URL, of course. It's an (american) government agency's website, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), for what it's worth...71.61.217.190 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Nevad kid Hi Canada, Just to let you know, Nevadascredme is correct. He may be using the wrong media....but wants everyone to know that The Nevada department of Corrections IS a lie. They have spawned hatred throughout the state, and are esponsible for increasing unemployment rates throughout the region. The whole entity is a mirage. Cadets have lost homes, cars....families. Maybe you can clean up the article, but all facts can be corroborated. Thanks!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limabean123 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Reported user as sockpuppet. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Re: Zitkala-Sa hmmm... My first reaction was that it was pure fabrication, but then I took another look and it looks like it may be genuine. I am not familiar with the book that the article is quoting from, but the addition seems to be consistent with the portions of the article that are cited to particular pages. I would say, let it stay. Thingg⊕⊗ 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Shrivastava Hi, you correctly reverted a non-notable addition to a list, then reinstated it. Slip of the mouse? I've reverted it again. Regards, Fayenatic (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for catching that. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) failed reversion hello, yesterday you reverted some vandalism on Ethanol fuel - but it appears you only reverted one revision back, and the vandal had done two revisions ( [8] ). this left the article missing a very large section. i don't know if this was user error or a twinkle error, but i thought i should bring it to your attention. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC) looking more closely, it must have been a twinkle or database error, since the edit summary shows the automated 'back to cluebot revision' text - but it didn't revert fully. strange. ghost in the machine. Anastrophe (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)