User talk:Metricopolus

Hi Metricopolus, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Metricopolus. You have new messages at Slakr's talk page.
Message added --slakr^\ talk / 05:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Metricopolus. 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! FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit that you reverted

Please explain the reason why you reverted my edit on my talk page. Cbrittain10 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert any edits on your talk page. However, I reverted your edit to Party game, because you had the letter q as part of the title (which shouldn't have been there), though the rest of that edit was fine. I think I was a bit harsh by giving you the warning because it was evident that the stray letter q was a typo, given that the rest of the edit was fine. I should have reverted it with twinkle, perhaps, and used the "good faith" edit summary. You can remove the warning if you like. Metricopolus (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you could have just edited it to remove the q. I did it for you, but remember WP:R Van for next time. Don't revert a page solely because of something like that. Anyway, good luck. Cbrittain10 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard and Mary Parker

Why did you undo the edit I did, reinstating the information that the cover used on the page is inaccurate in describing them as agents of SHIELD? Neither one was an agent of SHIELD (read the talk page), and that cover is inaccurate in calling them that, per Tom Brevoort, the man who wrote that cover text. Using that image without clarifying that it is wrong to call them agents of SHIELD means the page is misleading, and is just encouraging people to wrongly amend the page to make the page fit the inaccurate cover text. 109.152.148.224 (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...I admit I made a mistake. I'm not very familiar with the context of the article, but my revert was incorrect. I also added a full stop to make the grammatical part of your edit correct. Metricopolus (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:An Unknown Person

User:An Unknown Person was a sockpuppet of User:Bowei Haung 2 so that's why I'm redirecting it. So can you please let me do so?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK...I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the situation, but you are free to revert my revert. Metricopolus (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my edit.

My edit was not unconstructive but it was helpful. I went to that school so I have knowledge of what happened and knowledge of the things. My edit was helping wikipedia, it should have not been deleted. I feel disrespected because it was deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliabdi1205 (talk • contribs)

This was on your userpage, so I'm moving it here. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if you do not tell me your IP address or username, there is no way I can look into the matter and see if your edit was vandalism or not. I do tons of rollbacks each day, and there's no way I'll be able to be able to look through my contribs to see who you are. However, if you tell me your IP address/username, I will happily look into the matter. Metricopolus (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...now I've figured out who you are by looking into the history of my userpage. I gather that you are more familiar with the context of the article than me, so your edit was probably ok...I recommend that you cite a verifiable source next time, to avoid further confusion. Sorry. Metricopolus (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove the warning...but before doing that you should cite the source. Metricopolus (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the username for you.--v/r - T P 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

Hi. this edit wasn't vandalism. The notice the IP removed literally says "Feel free to remove this notice once the RfA has been transcluded" and the RFA has been transcluded. You may want to remove the notice from the IP's talk page.--v/r - T P 13:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Metricopolus, please slow down. You're reverting too many good faith edits and I see you have received several complaints already. Recall that rollback is for use on explicit vandalism only, not on good faith edits. If you continue receiving complaints, I will have no choice but to revoke your rollback access. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle reversion

Hi, I looked at your reversion here. Please be careful. This edit wasn't vandalism, it was removal of a speedy deletion template. Make sure not to just press the "revert and warn" button and to use the drop down menu to select "removal of speedy deletion template" This lets the person know what they have done wrong in the warning. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, Puffin. I will definitely take that onboard next time I go vandalism reverting. I've received several complaints for being too quick and careless with reversions, but besides this suggestion, I don't think I've done anything wrong since about 22 July. What do you think is an acceptable rate of errors? (I assume that no one can be absolutely 100% correct all the time with reversions) Metricopolus (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course everyone makes mistakes, I have as you can see here, here and here. But those were all back in 2010 and I have had no problems since then by slowing down and taking on board the advice. No one can be 100% correct, that's impossible. But, slowing down and looking at each edit in more detail will stop these complaints. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 13:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you reverted an edit that is wrong. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.185 (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is wrong; please explain. Metricopolus (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note explaining that one of the names was a two-word phrase spelled backwards, which adds non-evident information about the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.185 (talk) 06:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see my mistake. Your insertion of "wet vagina backwards" is unconstructive, I think. Metricopolus (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should research (and fix) the root cause of this problem. It appears to date from 2 June 2009 and involve user 98.162.242.129. Downsize43 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments at my Editor Review, Downsize43. You are right; I failed to look at the bigger picture and still didn't notice it when I went to research the edit. Thank you for helping me out. Metricopolus (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not vandalism, it was a user trying to be helpful in providing information on the talk page. [1] --CutOffTies (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I have no idea what I was thinking at the time. I am trying to be more careful with my reverts. Metricopolus (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Hello, this is just to let you know that your editor review has been completed, several editors have provided their feedback on your editor review page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Happy editing and regards, The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 15:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I am very interested in mathematics, in particular olympiads, and will soon make some contributions to maths articles. Metricopolus (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Have a look at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, if you haven't already. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 12:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:71.255.108.104

Users can actually remove their warnings at any time. Regards. Marcus Qwertyus 02:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...I didn't know that before so thanks for telling me. But I wasn't the one who restored the warnings on User talk:71.255.108.104, it was User:Red Rover112 who did it. Perhaps you might want to tell him this. I believe you, as I read it on a wikipedia guide article, but it is a bit of a funny rule to me. Metricopolus (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken identity. Marcus Qwertyus 12:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging and welcomes

Thanks for tagging Jude (Judas) Gomes just now; I have deleted it. Two points: you were quite right to change your initial A9 tag to A7, but there was no need to blank the article content at the same time - maybe you didn't mean to. The only time when article content needs to be blanked is where it is an attack page (G10). Also, when tagging an article for a new user who has not had any previous messages, it is a good idea to give a "welcome" message before the speedy notice - it makes it less WP:BITEy, and gives useful links which may help the newbie do better next time. {{firstarticle}} is a good one, which should be "subst"-ed - {{subst:firstarticle|articlename}}. There is a peculiarity about that particular one - it adds a signature automatically, so for once you don't need to add ~~~~. If the page being tagged is an advertisement, {{welcome-spam}} is good. Keep going with New Page Patrol - one of the most important ways to keep Wikipedia useful! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I didn't actually know that I blanked the page; I must have clicked the wrong item on the "undo recent actions" button in Huggle. I'm not sure when Huggle gives welcome notices, because once I CSDed a page (created by a user with no edits except that one) and a welcome notice was put onto the talkpage. In the future I'll definitely check that a welcome notice has been placed on the user's talkpage if they have had no edits (besides creating that article). Metricopolus (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hello! I hope you enjoy this treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Metricopolus (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Inna edit you reverted

Hello,

I changed the chart position of Club Rocker because it was wrong. If you add a chart position then you have to use a source (and there wasn't), not the other way around. Club Rocker charted at number 89 in the Dutch Top 100! The other Dutch positions given for the Netherlands in that table are from the Dutch top 40 (the name already says it : Dutch top40, hence no positions above 40 which means 89 is logically impossible!!). They are 2 completely different charts!!!!!!! (as I already stated when I edited the page). Club Rocker did not chart in the Dutch top 40 (yet). If you insist on using the chart positions for the Dutch top100 in that table then you will have to change the positions of her singles to 4, 31, 9, 23, 76, 7 and 89 respectively. Because that's where they charted on the Dutch top100!! I get this trouble every time and it's seriously starting to piss me off. I AM from the Netherlands, I know what I'm talking about. The exact same thing happened with 10 Minutes. Instead of keeping my (very correct) edits, it's always reverted without anyone looking into it, probably assuming it's vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.151.108.251 (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the context of the article, but in any case, commenting on what should or should not be in an article (or what's wrong with it) should never be done on the article itself. The article talk page is there for that purpose. Sorry for the late reply - I have been extremely busy in real life recently and just haven't found the time. Metricopolus (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 29 August 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of this edit

I don't think you realized this, but the IP was just trying to restore information that had been removed with no explanation a few minutes earlier. The quasi-warning you gave the IP about "significantly changing content without a source" seems a little over the top.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 15:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually realise that. I agree that the warning I gave was a bit over the top. Thanks for the notice. Metricopolus (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Rollback on the "West Canada Creek" was wrong

Metricopolus, your rollbacks (09/02/11) on my additions on the West Canada Creek were not well thought out. I saw what was written before, and knew there was a lot more that needed to be added. I started with a photograph I took of the kiosk that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation installed at Nobleborough. Since I don't know how you go about sourcing that information, I've started buying books in order to get citations. There was no vandalism in what I did. It was good faith, and a work in progress. The citations that I had added were also removed! Removing the photograph that I put there was just wrong! I took that picture at the same time I photographed the kiosk. When I changed the word "drained" to the word "empties" I was making it more readable by changing the redundency caused by the secoond use of the word "drain" in the sentence. I don't know for sure how to get this information to you, but this is where I'm starting. If there were things you thought needed citations, I've seen many a time square brackets with "citation needed". The fact is you didn't bother to read what you rolled back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHenrickson (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very sorry for that. A major wikipedia policy is to assume good faith, and that was the exact opposite of what I did. Feel free to remove the warning from your talkpage. Metricopolus (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Rollback on Template:Pac-12 Baseball Parks was wrong

According to the reference #48 from the Pacific-12 Conference webpage, University of Arizona is moving baseball stadiums in 2012, aka this coming season. That reference is directly from the University of Arizona's athletics website. I am going to go ahead and change it back to the information. (I was also in the process of copying that reference to several other University of Arizona baseball related pages.) If you still disagree, re-re-revert me. 67.170.221.99 (talk)

Read and understood; thanks for the note. Metricopolus (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed rollback on my Photograph of the Prospect Gorge

I have put in copyright information. I thought when I said I was the author it was OK. It is kind of tough to find out what to put down when it's my own work. I have to dig through tons of irrelivant information and still am not sure what to put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHenrickson (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed rollback? I don't think so and please correct me if I'm wrong. It was User:ww2censor who propsed the deletion of it. I don't know much about wikipedia's policies regarding copyrighted material, so I will ask User:ww2censor to continue with this discussion on this page. I think you probably need to put something, even if you're the author. Metricopolus (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have a look at the Why was my image deleted? bit on ww2censor's talkpage. Metricopolus (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. While you put some licencing details into your upload summary after I had been tagged for deletion those details don't get seen easily nor are they in the proper format for patrolling bots to see. I have added the normally used {{information}} template and filled out the details from the upload summary and metadata but you still need to add a description of the image. Otherwise it all looks good now. In future please provide all the details requested during the upload because that greatly assists those editors who volunteer to review image uploads. With so many copyright violations and other bad uploads so any avoidance of unnecessary housekeeping is helpful. As you are not familiar with copyright issues, which can be rather complex in all directions but we take copyright status very seriously around here so I suggest you read my image copyright information page that I wrote specifically for editors like you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it was not you, it was User:ww2censor. I'm new to this, and am having a little trouble mastering the uploads. I appreciate the help in making it right, especially the time between your finding the problem and the proposed deletion.

No worries. I'm very happy to help you again; just leave me another note on my talk page. Remember to sign your posts with four tildes. Metricopolus (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Brian Cox edit

I am a little unsure as to why you reverted this a few moments ago and described it as 'not constructive' on my talk page. I merely added a reference from a source produced by the University of Dundee for an un-cited point and added the fact that Brian is the twelfth person to hold the office. Apologies if I made an error doing this, but I would like to be clear on what I have done wrong so as to avoid repeating my mistake in the future.

Thanks and best wishes Dunarc (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again I think after I made the change a gap appeared in the word London further up the page. Was this the problem? As far as I am aware I did not do anything which would have caused this. If this was the problem and my actual edit was OK could you please restore it. I am also a bit puzzelled why you put welcome to Wikipedia as I have been a user for some months.

Regards, Dunarc (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw the gap in London and not the rest of the edit. The rest of the edit was fine. I should have just fixed the gap in London, instead of reverting the whole edit. I've fixed the problem now. Thanks for the notice. Metricopolus (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the word "welcome" was there as it is part of such a templated warning/notice. (as most unconstructive edits are made by editors that have only been on the project for a few days) Metricopolus (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for fixing this. Dunarc (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manyu

--- http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Manyu should be marked for deletion! Rituraj.shukla (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC) ---[reply]

Actually it shouldn't be. It was a disambiguation page that was vandalised (see page history to understand what happened). I've warned the IP vandal. Even if it should have been deleted, I don't think there was a need to blank the page. Metricopolus (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you please explain the reason of this warning? [2]

The term is Hungarian Revolutionary War used in conenction to Hungarian Revolution of 1848, please check Google Books results [3]. I ask you to retract your warning (SamiraJ (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

See the article talkpage. I think that it is about the 20th century. Does that help? Metricopolus (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this Talk:Hungarian_Revolutionary_War? I've shown you a aplenty of RS from Google Books that support my allegation, please check them! I ask you again to retract your unfounded warning! (SamiraJ (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

My mistake; now see what you mean. Metricopolus (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should have warned Fakirbakir instead for his groundless revert [4] (SamiraJ (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Will tell him about it. Metricopolus (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In future, when you tell editors about their incorrect reverts, you should do it in a calmer tone. Because everybody makes mistakes, and recent changes patrollers like myself can do tons of rollbacks each day. Just a note. Metricopolus (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the page is about year of 1919. The redirection to Hungarian Revolution of 1848 was totally unjustified. I have altered the title to Allied Intervention in Hungary. (Moreover, there were two revolutions in 1918-19 (social democratic revolution and 'counter' revolution)). Fakirbakir (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metricopolus, sorry for my tone, I was really nervous that Fakirbakir refuses to understand an obvious fact. As it can be seen from the previous message, he continues to support his POV even if the Google Books sources are crystal clear (SamiraJ (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The title was misleading, I admit it. I changed that because of it. I support nothing. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

Hei! Actually I did explain this edit in edit summary as asked in a note left at my talk page. English Wikipedia category "Academics" seems to consist of any kind of scholars, but et-, fi- and svwiki categories consist of certain kind of university staff. So if categories at other wikis distinguish these things, then bots staring from enwiki more likely mess up interwiki links elsewhere based on inexact interwiki links here. 193.40.10.181 (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I did not see the edit summary. Sorry! Metricopolus (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. :)

♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd be happy to do it again, if necessary. Metricopolus (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it will not be. :P ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your anti-vandalism work. You've beaten me to vandalism three times, good job and happy editing! -- Luke (Talk) 03:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I have a question about WikiDefocon: How can I change the vandalism level? I see that you've done that before so you're probably a good person to ask. Metricopolus (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the Wiki Defcon level here. All you have to is edit the "Level", "Sign", and "Info" parameters. It may take some time to update, however. Hope this helps. -- Luke (Talk) 03:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Metricopolus (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

I've answered you query on my talk page. Hope it helps. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Over Flowers (TV series)

Hello, Metricopolus, this is about the changes I made to Boys over flowers (TV Series). The synopsis is completely misleading and does not correlate with the movie.Because I had initially read the synopsis before watching the show, so imagine my surprise when it turns all the episodes were incorrect. That was my reason for deleting the sysnopsis, so as not to mislead others. I would appreciate it if you would either revise it or delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.174.116 (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't revise the synopsis as I haven't watched the TV series. I will remove it per your request, but since you have watched the TV series, you might want to add a synopsis to the article. Metricopolus (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacking

Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Admission to the bar in the United States. This is much appreciated, but unfortunately your repair was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. Keep up the great work -- hit the rollback button and preview the page before you save. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

72.255.36.134 is the same person as Omggnhgyag, who has been vandalizing Gene Nichol. User:Omggnhgyag blanked his talk page after a final warning, then proceeded to log out and continue vandalizing using his IP. I'm not sure why you undid your own revert, but I've since cleaned the page back up. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my memory I actually undid my undoing of my revert, but that is clearly not the case. I undid my revert as I wasn't sure if the edit was vandalism. Thanks for the note. Metricopolus (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Edits Removed

On the Jersey_Shore_(TV_series) page, under the starring section, Paul "Pauly D" DelVecchio has his alias in "'s, so why should the rest of the cast not have their alias' in the starring list. I was trying to make it more consistent by making a small edit to the wording. But it then disabled the link to Jennifer Farley's wiki page so I implemented the redirect. However, if you see that as harmful for some reason, so be it. Jimmybobbyson (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Metricopolus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Obvious COI

Tancredi1 is an obvious sock-puppet of the Palumbo family. It only edits on that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 has referred to COI edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an obvious COI, but that's not the way to deal with it. Inserting the word sockpuppet on the user's talk page does not do much. You should actually specifically explain what it is that they are doing wrong, as I will do. Metricopolus (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: NARROW FRAMING

Hello Metricopolus. I am just letting you know that I deleted NARROW FRAMING, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. nancy 10:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam question

Vuly Trampolines#endorsement has a number of "endorsers". This seems rather like spam. Should I delete it? Also, a user 110.32.41.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is putting endorsements sections in pages such as Christie Jenkins for Vuly trampolines with keyed links to Vuly suggesting he is an affiliate. Should I delete the endorsement section? I have been btw. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I haven't dealt much with spam on wikipedia. I'm not really too sure what you should do, but I think it probably is spam. Maybe you should ask a more experienced user - I have only been here for about four months, and today is the first time I have edited for a few weeks. Metricopolus (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pl restore SEAIndia page

Hi, I updated a wikipedia page at en.wiki.x.io/wiki/SEAIndia but you have deleted it. Please restore the page and make it clean by removing the notice. I am facing difficulty accessing wiki & in contacting you . So, you could email me your queries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puneet3210 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you looked at my change

I recently made a small edit to your Hank Williams Sr. article. I changed "in occasions" to "on occasion", which is proper English, whereas "on occasion" is not. I'm not sure if you look at edits before declaring them vandalism, or if you just have something against unregistered users, but what I did was clearly not vandalism. I ask you to rethink your accusation, and/or check and see if "in occasions" is actually a proper phrase in the English language. The funny thing is, that by changing my edit, YOU vandalized the page. Ironic, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.146.150 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are both wrong. It should not be "in occasions" or "on occasion", it should be "on occasions. Metricopolus (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting that vandalism! HurricaneFan 25 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for the barnstar. Hopefully yourname stops attacking you soon. Metricopolus (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English School, Nicosia

The article The English School, Nicosia has been vandalised quite heavily. You will have to roll back a number of edits by the IP address check it out.Msruzicka (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Do you think I've done it correctly? Metricopolus (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good job!Msruzicka (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really this dense?

I was commenting on content, and it was a message to him. You have no right to intercept messages from one user to another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.151.43.88 (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once more

You are overstepping your boundaries by intercepting messages from one user from another. I may not be bothered to hunt down the password to my account as I very rarely edit but I do know a thing or two about Wiki etiquette, and deleting comments--especially when those comments are not attacks--from another user's Talk page is not done. Even outside of Wiki etiquette intercepting messages is simply not an OK thing in which to engage. Keep deleting my comments from the Talk page in question and keep threatening me with warnings and I will see to it that you will answer to someone slightly higher up in the Wikipedia hierarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.151.43.88 (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain this?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:M1$CR3ANT

You undid my changes, by which I removed this porn spam from numerous categories! Are you a recent changes patroller or an on-site spammer supporter? Leo (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De-trouting

Thanks for de-trouting me! Jim1138 (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis [5][6], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=48148026 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was a compliment in Portugese

FYI, re this revert: according to Google translate, he said "Good job! So the article was much better" in Portugese. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

First of all, do you understand what i wrote? or any part of our discussion? We agreed that Vasco would see the sources i gave him and hould improve the article. I was only confirming the good job he did and thanking him for helping me. That is not vandalism, vandalism is what you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.128.211 (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment in preceding section. If you had written it in English, none of this would have been necessary. After all, we are on the English version. Saúde. - DVdm (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This seems to be followed up on User talk:DVdm#English or Portuguese. - DVdm (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasina Pidgeon

Was there a reason for this? It also appears that you may have used Rollback, which is prohibited unless it is clear vandalism (or other instances that are not relevant here). Adding a category to which the article belongs is never vandalism, nor would it even be vandalism as to if there was some sort of dispute on the topic. Even if you did not use the Rollback feature, at the very least, take a moment to explain the edits when you undo them, unless again it is clear. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange reverts?

You should double-check it, whatever your running. [7][8] and quite few others... --Cold Season (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Athletic Conference

I'm not sure why you reverted my edits to the Western Athletic Conference article. All of the conference changes officially took place today, July 1, 2012. That's what I'm updating. +Treydavis3 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compromised?

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it is believed to have been compromised. Note that edits to your user talk page might not indicate that you have regained control of your account. If your rights to e-mail and edit your user talk page have been revoked, contact ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org.

If the account is not compromised, then please let us know what is going on using the {{unblock}} template. Thanks. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]