User talk:QueenCake/Archive 2

Russia blanking

Please take a look at the recent history of the Russia article. I don't think you meant to do that! Please be careful in future. --Tango (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I believed it was getting reverted to its right form, I'll definitely look out next time. QueenCake (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd you come from?

I've never seen you during RC patrol before. In any case, awesome job, keep it up! :D ALI ^{nom nom} 19:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for your help on my user tlak page just now, regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ImperialPride

I have no idea why you're watching my page, but thanks. The editor had asked me a question on my talk page and I'd answered it, and then somehow he got confused and thought he'd asked on my user page. Go figure! Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) QueenCake (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

No, I'm afraid you misunderstood: I blanked the page temporarily because there was a somehow complex problem with redirects. I redirected it a few seconds later. Jake V (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to do so, I fully understand you. You face tons of vandalism every day to research each case separately. The truth is, I could have fixed the problem without that intermediate blanking, but mistakes are common. Have a nice day! Jake V (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racist vandal

Thanks for letting me know. The warning level was correct IMHO. I've commented at WP:EF/R#Black Baboon about this one not tripping the filter and maybe we'll need a blanket ban on non-admins being able to use the phrase in any article. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. Thank you for your friendly message. I'm concerned though that instead of corresponding to me like a gentleman and a scholar, you allowed a machine to formulate a greeting/warning. Surely this kind of approach is dehumanising and damaging to the project as a whole? Thank you for listening. 86.40.210.123 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shotover Jet

Thanks for that. If I'd seen the date as being on April 1st, I never would have added it. However, the article was dated April 11, and I saw no reason to doubt it. I'm not usually a sucker for this sort of thing, it's just that someone else fell for it and re-printed it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For fixing vandalism to my user page earlier. --John (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) QueenCake (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

I think you sent the vandalism warning to the wrong person. I reversed (not added) the vandalism on this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.25.2 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks for reverting that vandal, I hope you'll accept this barnstar. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Userpage Shield
		Thank you, for reverting the vandalism on my userpage! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop undoing my legitimate change. It is not vandalism.

My change to List of "LGBT and LGBT-friendly fraternities and sororities" was not unconstructive and was not vandalism. It added truthful information to the list. Some of those organizations are now defunct and others have merged with other organizations. Please explain how this is either not-truthful or vandalism before you go changing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.191.115 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to be mixed with another edit :S QueenCake (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, cheers :) QueenCake (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links of Monitor Group

I realized that the official social media links of Monitor Group (e.g. twitter) were not allowed.

I have since taken them off the list of websites, but my edits were still removed.

The remaining list of sites are those of Monitor Group's business units.

What else do I need to trim off?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.147.192.176 (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for fixing the list up

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.147.192.176 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Formula One season

You might want to clarify on the Talk page where that sponsorship discussion took place - the link your provided did not work and is just inviting to get it reverted again. --Falcadore (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits to F1 Season articles

Oops... my mistake. I completely forgot about references. I just saw quickly that you've made further edits to the related pages in order to fix it. I hope I didn't cause much trouble, anyway thanks for your notification. Maimai009 11:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kauhsen

Thank you for making such an improvement to the article in the first place. DH85868993 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari private entries

Hi! I've noticed you recently filled the missing entries on Ferrari privateers. Great job! Couple comments:

Could you be so kind as to list the sources you used in the references to the article?
Why do you believe the privateers table is complete now? I haven't checked it myself, but usually the statement like this requires exhaustively checking entry lists as well as qualifying and classification results for each Grand Prix from 1950s through 1980s. Did you do this work by yourself, or did you use some pre-compiled source(s)? If the latter, which sources? (Specify in the references please.)
You changed Scarlatti's entrant in Monaco-56 from himself to Scuderia Centro Sud. What's your source? If you are sure the information is correct, could you fix Scarlatti's article as well (and please provide the reference there to the source)?

Great job otherwise. cherkash (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also update the discussion on the Talk:Ferrari Grand Prix results (as well as the Wiki pages mentioned there) pertaining to Scarlatti's Monaco-56 entry, in case you have a reliable source to resolve the last question above. cherkash (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the situation with citing proper sources for results is way too bad on WPF1. In fact, I've just started a new discussion on the WPF1 talk page - feel free to comment there. As for Scarlatti, per my new comment here, it seems that he himself was the entrant in Monaco-56 after all. I'll go ahead and change that in a few days if nobody comes forward with some contrary evidence. cherkash (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rial Racing

Hi Queencake. Thanks for the spectacular improvement you made to Rial Racing. I can't believe how bad the text was previously! Thanks again. DH85868993 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. v. Coote

Quoth QueenCake: "Certainly no stub"

You're too kind. It was my first article and i wasn't sure of the protocol, so I bunged the "This article is a stub" in out of abundance of caution. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F1 results table headings

Hi QueenCake. I notice you have have changed the headings of some F1 results tables (e.g. here). In case you weren't aware, the words "Complete" and "World Championship" are (in most cases) either used or not used deliberately, to indicate whether it is a full or (possibly) incomplete set of results and whether it covers just the World Championship races or all races contested. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]