User talk:Carmichael/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Your request for rollback

Hi Carmichael95. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! Carmichael95 (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why Am I being accused of vandalism for trying to fix an article that is full of errors? This is the second time I have tried to fix this article. the first I did so I was accused of vandalism. Then I had to explain the article was full of errors and was incorrect. After I corrected this article someone else false reverted it back. Now I went back today to try to fix it again and once again it was wrongly reverted. I tried fixing it again and you now accuse me of vandalism. the second time this has been done to me just for trying to fix this broken article. This article has numerous eggregious errors on it. I am trying to fix it and each time I try to fix it I am accused of vandalism and it reverted back to its state which is full of errors. Half the games listed are NOT NBA versus FIBA games. The name of the article is not even correct even. They are listed 10 years worth of games as "NBA versus "FIBA" that have absolutely nothing to do with that. Every time I try to fix this it gets reverted and I am falsely accused of vandalism. I really do not appreciate this at all.173.216.221.29 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for removing the warning. Can you tell me what should be done with this article? Should a new article be written and all the games that do not belong to be listed there then put into the new article? Because as it is now, every time you try to separate the games out the article gets reverted by someone. Also, many of the games do not actually fit the criteria of the name of the article. So is the best way to fix this problem just to make a new article and place the games that don't belong there into that new article.173.216.221.29 (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem! You have done the right thing by placing a notice on Talk:List of NBA vs FIBA games stating that there are numerous errors and that you are attempting to fix it. Another thing you could do is be sure to write a brief edit summary every time you save changes. Edits that do not contain an edit summary are much more likely to to raise a red flag. More information on edit summaryHelp:Edit summary. I will keep an eye on this page to make sure your beneficial edits are not being reverted. Carmichael95 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tip

When a user blanks a page that they created, please do not revert that edit, instead please tag it for speedy deletion which is ({{Db-g7}}). Thank you. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I do greatly appreciate your input as I am still relatively new to fighting vandalism via Huggle. Carmichael95 (talk) 02:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not vandal

Roubini is a Greece-hater turk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.98.123 (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2010

Your edits were unconstructive and reverted. Please discuss further edits at Talk:Nouriel Roubini. Carmichael95 (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh

Why did you revert Holy Cross High School (Connecticut) to a vandalized version of the page? Did you make a mistake? Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 01:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Rita Coolidge

Perhaps it was in the wrong section, but when one of the major songwriters of the American landscape dedicates a verse to you, it is 1) noteworthy, and 2) constructive. 'Shotgun Willie' is one of the masterpieces of American music (particularly country) by one of its past masters. It deserves replacement.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.53.102 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes. Carmichael95 (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for reverting the edits of that vandal on my talk page. --Confession0791 ^talk 02:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know you...

It's going to get serious one day. You will have to face the Wraith of the Lamb. You have shut the truth out from the people. YOU will have to answer to the Lord. If you start having trouble in your everyday life, you will know why. Shalom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.13.66 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No Subject

I don't know of another way to contact you so I'm using this page. I've corrected the total area of maximum extent on the ottoman empire to 5 mil. sq. km, which if you look at the map on the actual article it becomes instantly evident that the 20 mil. sq. km listed is like 5 times move than this. If you compare for example a map of the roman empire which was taking the same region, but was significantly larger and is listed at 6.5 mil, yet the otoman was listed as 20. The size is correctly listed on simple English. Even if you compare the area by collecting area via google maps you'll see it is about 5 mil, you can use the map on the article itself as a guide. Yet my edit was revoked automatically??? why? I only corrected an evident mistake. The maximum extend of the ottoman was 5 mil sq. km according to any map, not 20 mil. Please, help correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.52.122 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

After I reverted this, I went back and undid my own revert so it would reflect the 'good-faith' edit you had made. Sorry about that! Happy editing! carmichael (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Violet Wand Page

Hello Carmichael,

I appreciate your work on the Violet wand page. However, as an expert in them (because I am only one of two violet wand manufacturers in North America) I have been contributing to the wiki on that page for many years. A recent removal of an educational link took place in May 10 by 121.45.98.249. This link was to the Violet Wand Guild, the only educational information source in existence on the bdsm and fetish use of violet wands. The link was cited as an advertisement by the remover. I corrected the removal, and you have recently reverted to the removal, though this is an error. Please allow me to explain.

The site for the Violet Wand Guild at www.violetwands.org contains no commerce and has no commercial basis. They are a not-for-profit BDSM community organization operated by a group of fetish community individuals. I am a member of the Guild, but not an officer, as they do not allow any commercially based conflicts of interest, being educational only. They do however, provide off-site links to commercial resources for their 3000 member community of members. The original wiki violet wand article information that was posted in 2004 was taken from the Violet Wand Guild information articles. Thus the external link to this educational Guild site has been up on the wiki since 2004, and the Violet Wand Guild site is the single source noted in the article from which the wiki was written in 2004.

The guild does require registration before accessing their body of information, as the articles contain adult topics. So an immediate brief glance into their site without registering, will not display the Guild's hundreds of information articles to the casual observer. Youw ould be able to register in order to make a review. There have been a few times people have erroneously removed the link to the violet wand guild's purely educational site in error, but major wiki editors have undone the removals each time, as it is an educational only site. These reversals can be referenced in the pages history, and have been supported by the Guild's not-for-profit status.

Thank you for your time. The violet wand wiki article is about a specific bdsm fetish sex toy, and which has been in existence only since the early to mid 1990s. The only source information on violet wands since then has been provided by the Violet Wand Guild at www.violetwands.org.

There is a photo on the page only of an antique violet ray (an antique quack medical device that has the same technological beginnings) and I will be posting a photo of an actual violet wand fetish electrical toy as well. Thank you again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violetwanda (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Blitz

I found the American Football definition for Blitz to be subpar & wanted to improve it. Not sure why you would revert 67.209.225.167 (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I have restored the page to the the version you had contributed to. jeffC (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

the edit i made...

on the 2010 Kids' Choice Awards page regarding taylor swift winning the favorite song was correct could you please reverse it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.228.193 (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

done. the page now reflects Taylor Swift as the winner. no reverse need because someone had already fixed it. jeffC (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Please look at what I did, instead of blindly reverting - yes, I removed some information, but it was necessary and allowed... 68.52.71.160 (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the vandal tag.

Hi,

I had sample c code showing how to effectively use getaddrinfo on the getaddrinfo page. The code was removed and I was given a vandalism warning. I do not appreciate it. The code is useful and shows how best utilize getaddrinfo. Please offer an explanation as to why it was removed and please justify the vandalizm warning.

I would like to contribute to wikipedia as I think it's the best source of information on the internet, but this is very discouraging and I'm extremely offended by your actions and I'm sorry to say that I'll be less likely to contribute in the future because of this.

Thanks, Reubenhwk (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2