Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:49, 5 April 2007

Welcome to my talk page. I recently archived a few years worth of people's comments. And then I did it again! Feel free to leave me messages or even flaming bags filled with poo.

Friendly objection

Hi, I added the link to the Capital Hill massacre page. Although I agree that you can google the lyrics, the song is nowhere to be found on any official or unofficial fan sites, including lists of rare songs, etc. I can only find it on generic song lyric pages. I added this because I found it disturbing, but I'll leave it up to you.

No poo for you

Just a note to let you know that there's a Checkuser request right now for your account and the IP's that spamvandalized a bunch of "ED v. MONGO/ArbCom" dispute participants, including yours. I have added some of the IP's to the case. Thank you.. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Squidward"

If it's not you, it's not you. Wiki-stalking me will not do you any good.--Konst.able 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

huh? wikistalking? I read AN/I. I "squidwarded" because someone said that word in an edit summary brings bot attention. My career makes squicking automated tasks an irrestible attraction. (and as to SPUI, I wish he'd figure out how to get along with people.) SchmuckyTheCat 06:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise for me, Schmucky, though in my case it felt to me more like trolling on your part. Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep it spinning, Ryan.

Notice

Note that our User:Instantnood has gotten to reverting articles right after the one week ban, including the article in which he was gulty of breaching the 3RR (, , plus . More may be on the way. Note that he has recently launched a "new initiative" in justifying all his revert warring by claiming there is a new "standard" in refering to the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" only as the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". Utter nonsense, but yeah, what else can we expect from a desperado.--Huaiwei 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also dropped a notice in the admin's talkpage User talk:Joelr31. Our friend goes about acting pitiful, whining about his innocence and attempts to justify his chronic obsessive reversion behavior yet again.--Huaiwei 23:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

cute wikilinking. SchmuckyTheCat 03:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Notice #2

Our User:Instantnood is now into weekend wikiwars, with a stagering range of reverts ignited in a matter of hours alone. Do note his recent foray into disruptive editing, which is most clearly evident in and . Also note that he is now persisting in using his latest revert excuse...that "official full names" should be used everywhere.--Huaiwei 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You clearly are missing something. I never said "official full names" should be used everywhere. Rather, I said full name or short name. Can you name any country which its partial full name is used, instead of its short name or full name? As for coast guard, I was only applying your logic. I have no strong opinion on whether the article should cover those not named coastguard or not (though it's always better to provide all relevant information whenever possible). — Instantnood 14:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing what, my dear friend? Your logic? Just what is a "partial full name", may I know? And why bother asking me to name a country with such a characteristic, when the entity in question is not a country anyway? Meanwhile, thanks for your confirmation that you are practising disruptive editing! :D--Huaiwei 15:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have to elaborate what a partial full name is. It's always important to maintain the quality of any article. You can't remove some of the coast guards because of their names, while keeping the others regardless of their names. — Instantnood 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes you jolly well have to, because no one can comprehend your lame reverting excuse. Meanwhile I am removing that entry from a section in which all entries are refered to as coast guards, and the descriptions are clearly meant to demonstrate the differing meanings they can have in different contexts around the world. How does the HK entry contribute to that section when it is not significantly different from the entries already listed, is not a major player, and is not even remotely referred to as a coast guard? If you want to be disruptive and play your "consistency only when it suits you" game, be my guest. I will be expecting to see you changing all names of political entities throughout wikipedia to their "full names".--Huaiwei 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on the AFD

I noticed that you voted a keep on this page. I'm not trying to sway you from your vote, but is there another reason you could put for the keep besides 'I like big butts and I cannot lie'? If you could put another reason there it may help other editors see your point of view. Thanks- CattleGirl 04:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think you know what's best for everyone who wants to know more about the USB connectors than what is there, without my additions of the other Mini-USB connectors? As long as what I add is correct, and properly documented, why deprive the world of it because it's not as usaeful as other info? I am about to add more info, and I no longer think they are non-standard as I am finding more and more products that use them (and yes, I'm keeping a list of links to the sources of that info).

BTW, there are errors in your Pictures page.

Jim

Greetings

: So, I see your reports of your departure were, as Mark Twan would say "greatly exaggerated". Good to see you are stil here. But I won't be asking you for directions to Dick's. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

You

are hopefully a regular contributor to Uncyclopedia. You're hilarious. 82.93.133.130 12:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No. They are an unfunny ripoff of ED.

Notice

Check out User:Michael G. Davis contributions in the space of just about 2 hours since registering (from to ). Seems suspicious? ;)--Huaiwei 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

And lo-behold! Our best friend appears right at about the same time! --Huaiwei 00:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

Would you care to explain what...

This was a rather humourous vandalism of my page. I wish I had a Praise Allah key on my keyboard. I'd be hitting it as hard as I could. Maybe that's what broke it.

... is supposed to mean? -- tariqabjotu 17:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the diff. Someone vandalized my page to say I broke my "Praise Allah" key. SchmuckyTheCat 17:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah... I see that. But the image? -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A reference to the show Aqua Teen Hunger Force that was deleted long ago, ruining my joke. SchmuckyTheCat 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And, if you are wondering about my "wow" comment, it's not about you, it's a reaction that what you said needed saying at all. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SDT Disambiguation

I hadn't realised that there were rules about adding disambiguation pages where only one of the options was a valid link.

Would my edit have been acceptable to you if I hadn't included the link syntax around Service Descriptor Table? DVB digital television is becoming a hot topic and doing a wikipedia search for SDT would be nice to give its digital TV definition.MendipBlue 14:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! (zoom zoom)

Thanks for your Zoom Zoom support at my RfA! To confirm your assumption: This user drives a Mazda RX-8. Any advice is welcome as I learn to use the new tools, and as a fellow administrator, would be much appreciated! Thanks again, and forgive my use of this dorky message box :) -- Renesis (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. — are you a fellow Mazda owner?

Welcome back!

Yo, Schmucky! Been way too long!! How's the fellow gearhead? - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

SARS

Re - Please note SARs ≠ SARS. — Instantnood 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

oh.

Re - Please note SARs are not SARS. — Instantnood 21:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of cities in the PRC

Re - Please read each of my previous edits and the edit summaries . Thanks. — Instantnood 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

no, use the talk page of the article for your problems. Misplaced Pages is a community effort and edit summaries are not meant to be conversation. SchmuckyTheCat 08:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

My apologies for wasting your time by creating the nonsense category Wikipedians who stop the cars and wave in the children. Please accept this peace dove.

Wdflake

Foie gras

I love it. I enjoy eating it. I also bought my girlfriend a beautiful fur coat. Anyways, I have enough on my hands battling the anti-evolution trolls, but good luck in standing up to the POV nonsense of the PETA crowd. As an MD, I know that without research on animals, there would be a lot of dead people. Though I shouldn't value one over the other, I'm going to go with saving people's lives as a higher calling. And eating a great fois gras is one of life's dear pleasures. Orangemarlin 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've amazingly stayed away from creationists here. And for no good reason, I have not eaten foie gras except some bad paté nearly 20 years ago. I think I'll have some within the week though, just out of spite for the people I'm arguing with.

Thanks for the comment. SchmuckyTheCat 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure you get the foie gras from a nice Perigord canard...I think they really make sure there are extra grain feedings prior to slaughtering of the duck.  ;) Orangemarlin 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition in santorum

It's not cited. Don't revert the page until a proper citation is given.

User notice: 3rr

Regarding reversions made on December 2006 to Talk:Foie_gras

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Please stick within 3R, even for such things as GA tags; it helps avoid confusion

William M. Connolley 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

— Instantnood 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on moving pages

Just a bit of advice for you on the move controversy re Transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong: In the future, if you move a page, and someone moves it back, don't revert the move. At that point, it's best to take it to the article's talk page and try to reach consensus. Edit-warring is bad, but move-warring is worse. Again, not a warning, just a suggestion. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Foie gras mediation request

Hi! I'm writing to let you know that I've opened up a mediation case (Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-27 Foie Gras controversy) in which you are listed as a participant. Please read me comments in the mediator's response area there, and we can decide on a text for the article. ST47Talk 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A doubt

Hello, Schmucky. I have a feeling that Zelig33 might be a sock of Benio76. Same languages on their userpage, similar writing style and attitude. Do you know what the process would be to find out for sure? If you think they're not the same person and it's not worth checking, please also feel free to let me know.--Ramdrake 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Noting that I've seen this. WP:RFCU is a serious step which I'd rather not take without proof, as there are stringent requirements on cases. Zelig does indeed look like a single purpose account, and the times of editing look similar. Do you want to RFCU? The page lists WP:AN/I as an alternative, and there may be a way to determine it without doing that, possibly through writing style - typos, grammatical errors, and the like - all of which would be excellent for RFCU. ST47Talk 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cochinita pibil

I'd appreciate it if you were to stop reverting Cochinita pibil to the state where it contains a recipe. I have now explained completely in that article's talk page as to the reasons for the recipe being excluded. Please do not include the recipe again. Thank you. --Andyroo316 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

re FCKGW

Uh, well, that was bold and then some... I guess in this case it works out OK though. Herostratus 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Macau/o

Re - If you accept it is just a spelling difference, and if you acknowledge that neither spellings is rarely used, why would you insist to use one only of them on Misplaced Pages? — Instantnood 20:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Because in wikipedia, the Macau article is spelt as such, and represents community concensus in wikipedia to spell it that way, even after taking into account all points raised in support of either spelling. An obsession with conscious deviation from this concensus represents open defiance and calls for disciplinary action. Clearly, SchmuckyTheCat is much more responsible and reasonable than what you expect of him.--Huaiwei 20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Farm Sanctuary

Hi. I see you and another editor have been reverting each other on the article Farm Sanctuary. Before this becomes a full scale war, please come by the talk page of the article. (This exact same message was posted on the other editor's talk page also). Natalie 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora

The Joint Declaration used "resume" and "restore", instead of "return". The UK recognised/s the PRC to be a successor of the ROC and Qing (Ch'ing), and the sole representative of all China. This was/is the view of the British Government. Misplaced Pages should, however, remain silence on whether or not this view is valid and correct. — Instantnood 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The point here is that the entity in question was China, and not specifically the PRC, the ROC, or the Qing Dynasty. And when the word "China" is in reference to a country, it is of no consequence just what government is installed to govern it. The reference to the country remains the same.--Huaiwei 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Farm Sanctuary

You have been blocked for committing a WP:3RR violation on the article Farm Sanctuary. This was determined on the basis of the following 6 edits committed in a twenty-four hour period: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Should you continue to edit in this disruptive fashion following the expiration of your block in 48 hours, you shall face even longer blocks. To contest this block, please email me, send a message to unblock-en-l, or add {{unblock}} to your talk page. AmiDaniel (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): You were unblocked by Geni . If you are still autoblocked, please add another unblock request. --BigDT 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I discussed this with other people before continuing the reverts and was assured that this was not 3rr worthy.

1. Farm Sanctuary is sending their employees and volunteers to Misplaced Pages. That's a clear violation of WP:COI when they are removing information from their own organiztion article just because they don't like it.
2. Having employees and volunteers of a single organization perform edits is just meat-puppetry. Brooklyn5, FarmSanctuary, and the IP editor are all from Farm Sanctuary.
3. The employees were adding bogus protected templates to the article after removing what they didn't like. That's vandalism, and other people were issuing the same warning:
4. The employees were removing sourced information. I even let stand the removal of an unsourced paragraph, mentioned it on the talk page, found the source, and then replaced it as sourced.
5. I'm a long-standing contributor. If admins punish a long-standing contributor for insisting that the Public Relations Department of a lobbying group comply with out policies then we can just throw out the idea that editors matter. Corporations can run rampant because they can pay people faster than Misplaced Pages can replace volunteers.

SchmuckyTheCat 05:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stand by, I've asked the blocking admin to comment. Sandstein 09:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Brooklyn5 for 48h and FarmSanctuary indef (username), but I prefer not to block one party and unblock the other, if you see what I mean. Hopefully AmiDaniel will get your message. yandman 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to wait for the blocking admin to comment, but I have some reservations about this block, subject to that input. In the meantime, I'm closing out a frivolous objection to your username at WP:RFC/N. Newyorkbrad 19:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

re:rfcn: oh geez. SchmuckyTheCat 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not commenting earlier--this is the first chance I've had to respond. The accusations you raise about corporately instigated meat-puppetry are quite stern, and upon closer examination I must say that they appear to contain some validity. The username User:FarmSanctuary does certainly suggest that there may be some truth to what you say, the account User:Brooklyn5 seems to be a single-purpose account, and the other anon involved in the edit war has only edited Farm Sanctuary. Had I investigated this more closely earlier, I likely would have made a different call on the matter. This is not, however, to say that I endorse the actions you took--in cases of suspected meat-puppetry, your best bet is to contact an administrator, preferably by posting at WP:AN/I, or to open an WP:RfC. Repeatedly reverting an article, regardless of who's right and who's wrong, will get you nowhere except blocked. This is a fact I thought you would have learned through your past experiences, and I hope that you may learn it now. I would highly suggest that you open an RfC on this article, and that you refrain from edit-warring with these users in the future regardless of the circumstances. Edit warring is never excusable. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The autoblock should now be removed. Please let me know if it is not. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert, hello?

Who made all those controversial edits, in the first place? Who disagreed with preserving status quo ante by action? Who's breaking Misplaced Pages official policies and guidelines? What I have been doing is to preserve status quo ante and adhering to Misplaced Pages official policies and guidelines. — Instantnood 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for correction

You cited this edit in your statement that it was " absolutely unacceptable POV warring ". The real side of the fact was that category:Macau was already in category:special administrative regions of the People's Republic of China. I thought it was not necessary to be in both. I could have been wrong, but that's obviously not an " absolutely unacceptable POV warring ". — Instantnood 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat = Spiderman

Please don't tell me about emotions when you are cold as stone yourself. If you prevent me writing the truth about Foie Gras you accept the torture.

With great power comes great responsibility

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beostaerling (talk • contribs)

User_talk:Swingers#Patent.2Ftrademark

It would appear that their mark is actually valid. I do not see how that has any impact on us, but for the sake of accuracy you may wish to amend or remove your comment. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion on List of Internet phenomena

I'm not going to edit List of Internet phenomena further until I see what some others have to say, but I hope you can understand that there are WP:LIVING and privacy concerns about some of these entries (not just Peppers). Your comments will be welcome on the talkpage discussion assuming somebody starts one. Or, maybe I should have just let you get username-blocked last week instead of speedy-closing it. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

iawtc?

I haven't run across that abbreviation before. What's it mean? -- Jay Maynard 13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree with this comment. SchmuckyTheCat 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of mainland China move request

You should make your support clear for this move you proposed. —  AjaxSmack  10:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/FarmSanctuary

The above checkuser request needs some more specific evidence. I've tried to add some stuff but as you filed the case it would be best if you added it. Cheers. MER-C 09:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vote-stacking

One can't help but think. I'm frankly getting pretty fed up of these bursts of activity to Save the Mainland, especially when there seems to be no thought of pulling similar stunts at CfD: looks to me a case of doing it where they can get away with it, rather than any sort of consistency. DRV here we come, I think. Alai 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

using your real name on Misplaced Pages

Please show me the rules in Misplaced Pages that prohibit one user from referring to another user by a non-offensive name simply because that user doesn't prefer being called that name. I'm not saying there is no rule against this - perhaps it comes under some other heading. I just want to know the rules so that I don't break them, despite what someone may or may not prefer. Thanks.GingerGin 18:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. SchmuckyTheCat 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:HARASS: "Posting of personal information. Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives." Newyorkbrad 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

db-reposts on "mainland China" categories

It appears you {{db}}'d Category:Transportation in mainland China and Category:Airports in mainland China as "{{db-repost}}" and Category:Cinema of mainland China with "db|recreation of previously deleted material". However, none of these appear to have been deleted (much less debated) prior to their having been speedied in response to your nominating them for such. Were you construing them to have been a "repost" of some related-but-not-identical category, or what? Alai 23:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a massive "creation/rename" proposal a long time ago. Isntantnood proposed dozens of these and the idea that "mainland China" was appropriate for anything was soundly rejected. It led to the first ArbCom case.SchmuckyTheCat 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The second seems to have previously existed as Category:Airports of mainland China. Did the other two exist in some earlier form, or were they not in fact "reposts" at all? Alai 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Airports was proposed by 'nood to be renamed from PRC. When the move was rejected, he made it anyways, then started writing new articles and moving uncategorized stubs into it. If you can read the old deleted talk page there, you'll see the most asinine excuse for category creation, ever. Then it was deleted. The recent recreation and deletion was after this.

Cinema - Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/NPOV/China_or_PRC_vs._mainland_China#Cinema_of_China, Talk:Cinema_of_China#List_of_film-related_topics, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/NPOV#..of_China_or_..of_the_PRC_.E2.86.92_..of_mainland_China 'nood wanted the article and category to be distinctly and exclusively scoped to the mainland. It was part of his massive rename proposal, which was completely aborted. So I don't think it ever existed to have a deletion record, but neither was there support for its creation as long as Cinema of China existed - in which case the initial creation would be a "re-post". If creation of it was discussed and rejected, it shouldn't require a new discussion to get rid of it when a proponent creates it anyway. Arguing otherwise is wiki-lawyering of the worst kind.

Transportation is also in there in the rename proposals. Note a bunch of this was so overwhelmingly verbose I can't even read it. Same as above, creation or rename was rejected.

Arguing about this was a massive flamefest that went on for six months in 2005 and didn't end until ArbCom ended it. The current situation (entirely seperate PRC and ROC categories, PRC being the parent for any administrative division that warrants a sub-cat) has mostly evolved out of those old discussions. There are obviously still people that don't like it, and occasionally there are big flare-ups from newcomers about Taiwan/ROC naming (I avoid those). 'nood though never accepted any of it, and he still fights over it and makes wormy excuses to create rejected things. Any time the creation/renaming of anything "XX of mainland China" is proposed it is rejected, but it has obvious proponents. When they get created anyways, it's a big flame-fest watching them get deleted with 'nood always filibustering and arguing with every single person who comes to the discussion. Personally, I think the current situation is clean and logical and changing it isn't opening a can of worms, it is opening a wormhole to filibustering hell.

The actions by the crowd that has shown up in Instantnood's absence is beyond suspicious. There is a really strong correlation between when Instantnood gets banned and when they show up to make edits he would. They probably aren't socks, but they are communicating, and logging in serially (Passer-by edits for a few hours, then Privacy, then Michael G. Davis, with little or no overlap). SchmuckyTheCat 05:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After thinking about this I wanted to also add that I try to Assume Good Faith, really. But editing in this area is nearly impossible without running into political editors and there are always fishy sock puppets around. For example, look at these Special:Contributions/Trendsure, Special:Contributions/Quitepick. There is no way those are new, or different users. Users like that show up a lot and often times "sleep" for a while so they can do page moves and edit sprotected pages. Sneaky things like edits to images Image:Hong Kong Location.png don't show up in watchlists, and is another method for the POV warriors to make changes. Most established editors here are a little aggressive in watchdogging POV edits. So hopefully there is some understanding that when a "new" user comes along and makes detailed changes to complicated nested templates, reverts to particular POV versions, and then claims ignorance about why certain categories don't exist I'm reluctant to waste time re-hashing arguments they are certainly aware of. SchmuckyTheCat 06:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response (which I've only just noticed, due to its quaint location). I don't agree that a rejected move means that creating an additional category at the target should be automatically speediable. Just creating something ab initio doesn't require an explicit consensus, and until such time as it's created, and then there's an explicit consensus to delete it, there can't really be said to be a consensus for it not to be there. (I don't claim this is an ideal state of affairs, just the actual one.) The rest of your comments I wouldn't necessarily take issue with... Alai 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Freddy

Well, considering there's no contact information of any kind, I don't think this is particularly problematic. You may want to point such people at the Misplaced Pages:Username policy, which has a section explaining the consequences of using your real name. It's simply a choice people make. >Radiant< 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Powerpuff Girls

If you fail to give a valid reason on the talk pages for your revert of my edits by 22:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (tomorrow), your edits will be reverted back. Marcus2 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't tell me what to do. For the love of God, my mother has told me that she knows the show wasn't that big, and she said she would never steer me wrong. Marcus2 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources. You really don't know what you're talking about. People bend the truth sometimes. Marcus2 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert wars

Please kindly accept the reality that you are the person creating the "war", for you were the one who removed a sentence without first proposing in the talk page. You have the burden to have your proposal discussed and agreed by the community before you actually make such changes. — Instantnood 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Re: - I did not mean to add these articles to any categories. I was undoing user:Secrecy's vandalisms. Please be reminded to be careful with your accusations. — Instantnood 21:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are not related to any " enforcement of ArbCom sanctions ". They are simple vandalism, no matter you've recognised already or not. — Instantnood 22:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Transport

Could you please kindly explain these reverts? The PRC ministries of communications and railways, and the CAAC do not oversee transport in the special administrative regions. Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the National Trunk Highway System network. Metros are also railways. Cathay Pacific also holds 20% stake in Air China (they hold each other), and China Eastern is also held by the CAAC. — Instantnood 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Intentional typo

Re - Please be reminded (well, again) that special administrative regions (SARs) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) are not the same thing. — Instantnood 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)