Hi, Thank you for checking my article. I took contest speedy deletion. Could you look at it? Day stamped by: ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

i would love to help you, but I'm sorry I don't recall the specific article what was the speedy deletion category? ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

CIS is hate group http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance

Than you should take up such a controversial removal to the articles talk page, not unilaterally remove it. :-)

<3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I love you.

Sincerely, your secret lover.

<3

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Note. I have signed this unsigned post to date it so the bot will auto-archive it.

Thank you for the warm welcome Solarra. My explanation for the personel attack I posted on your talk page is, I was not intending to attack you but I posted that with a lot of heat. The same reason applies to the numerous spelling mistakes I made in the message I posted on My talk page. This heat resulted from the fact that I thought that you were randomly calling my edits vandalism, you see: your third reversion of my edits contradicts your first reversion of my edits. Further I thought that you knew that pelycosauria is not a valid clade(my reason being that no scientist other then Michael J Benten use pelycosauria as a formal clade). Sorry for the personal attacks.Aliafroz1901(talk)14:27, 19 June 2012(UTC)

It is not a problem, I am not a paleontologist by any stretch of the imagination so I have to go off of common sense when I revert any edits. In this case I will defer to your obviously superior knowledge on the subject. Thank you very much for apologizing to me :-) If there is anyway I can help you navigate the labyrinth that is Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to let me know!

<3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Date stamped by ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 08:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

HI Solarra Do you really think that Sir Isaac Heard lived to be 140? His correct year of death is 1822. Please re-correct.

Fixed.  :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Date stamped: ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 22:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I had a message off you recently about the date of release. I believe it was actually released in 1974, and written in 1965. I'm not sure what the presented date is to do with but would be interested to know. Please let me know any other information about the song.

From The Corries Wikipedia Page - "They had several albums in the top 50 album charts in Scotland, and released a single: - "Flower of Scotland" (1974)."

If you have a good source for a change in a date or figure on an article please change it :-) Just be sure to source it too, lots of vandals change dates and figures as a form of stealth vandalism. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Date stamped by: ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 08:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Solarra, i would like to ask for your assistance regarding the page of the band Analog Pussy - on wikipedia. thank you, jinno.

I have done some preliminary edits regarding your article. Generally it is frowned upon for a band to write its own page. That being said however, to improve it please do the following:

1. Establish the notability of the band, meaning find a third party publication (magazine, newspaper, blog, etc) that establishes the band is established professionally and meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

2. Extend the sections of the article, individual member's history is less relevant than the band's itself. How did it make it big? Where did the band start? What is unique about it's music? Ask yourself questions like this when writing the article.

3. Fix the red links to the individual albums the band has released, even if only a stub is created, it is better than a red link, but make certain the album itself is notable, otherwise get rid of the link and just list the album.

Hope this helps :-)

solarra,

thank you for responding, - but no — it doesn't help at all.

could we please do it by email? - please email me.

there is a major dispute between the owners of analog pussy — jiga & myself.

jinno.e@gmail.com

Day stamped by : ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC) .

"European federalism" suggests an ideology, not a group. The UEF are not the only group promoting European federalism. The Federal Europe article better explains this ideology. --109.153.96.239 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally changing redirect changing is a common form of vandalism and misinformation. After researching the subject I agree with you and have removed the vandalism message on your talk page. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

please do not remove content regarding Energetically Modified Cement on the "Cement" page. The content is approved by a leading academic in the field. So please, do not vandalise the page. You are a law student. Respect freedom of expression and the limits of your expertise.

And I do not want to debate this, I do not have time.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jono2013 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to debate, edits are restored and warning removed :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Again, Corporation and Incorporated is different types of companies, but Corps and Corporation is the same. Applist (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Apple Forever!

I removed the warnings on your talk page, however the company is called Apple Inc. per [1], and it could be construed as vandalism to change it :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Splendid edit!!! You was right!! Thanks! -Talk to me? See what I done? I am Applist 03:18 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 03:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good anti-vandalism work!...Keep it up! TheStrikeΣagle 12:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I saw you reverted the last edit on "Femen" article. The edit did not represent a vandalism, as it is possible to check that many of the protests organised by FEMEN are indeed highly controversial, which does not mean negative or bad. 141.138.38.202 (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the edit was vandalism, merely unsourced. If you wish to add that an organization is controversial, please source it :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

You gave a last warning (Lv 4) to User talk:Rebsec. He had not received any warnings whatsoever before. All he had was a speedy deletion notice and a username COI concern notice. Neither one is considered a vandalism or spam warning so a Level 4 is unwarranted. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate where you are coming from, however this particular user is obviously a promotional account and the edit in question [2] was a self promotion in the form of vandalism. In this case I feel a level 4 warning is warranted as the point needs to be made clear that vandalism is not tolerated for self promotion or any other purpose :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Addendum Actually it was two edits including [3] and the one mentioned above. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Promotional? Yes. A report to UAA is warranted in this case. For spam/vandalism, a Level 3 was more appropriate as it says Please Stop. A Level 4 says Last which makes no sense when there are no previous warnings. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from :-) Next time I'll use the 'Only' template in a similar situation, or if using Huggle a level 3 as you suggest. Thanks again :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Addendum: Added the user to UAA as suggested :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Solarra, perhaps you hadn't noticed, but as soon as Southern Wear 307 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefblocked for vandalism, I undid all their unsourced airing date related edits, as, based on their birthday vandalism, I assume these are faulty as well. Also, thanks for having removed that clueless comment from my talk page. If there's more, don't bother removing though — I'll try to say something. Cheers, and keep up the good work! - DVdm (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read my edit? Did you see the information I changed was as per source? Did you see the information on the page had two different dates of birth? Thanks. 86.183.98.24 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This page has had much vandalism from several IPs over the course of the last few hours. Birth date vandalism is a very common practice :-) I have removed the vandalism notes off of your talk page and requested the page be protected so that the vandalism will end for the time being at least :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome message. Perhaps it would have been better to read through fully the change I made and the reason I gave with my edit, before jumping on my supposed vandalism. 86.183.98.24 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Might I suggest making an account, as it will free you from popping up on anti-vandalism tools, allow you to edit semi-protected articles, and allow other users to more easily communicate with you. It is free and anonymous :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I don't see what was wrong with it. Its a forum all about her so why can it not appear as her website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BollyFanJenny (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an aggregate website for links about celebrities and the like, it is an encyclopedia. It is generally frowned upon to post fansites to articles unless it is the official site for the actor/actress in question. As a courtesy I removed the warning from your userpage. Thank you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Hi Solarra, We are the communication department of The Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd. Please note that we are currently feeding updated information on the MCB. Information that you can confirmed on our website : www.mcb.mu

Kind regards, MCBCom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbcom (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a promotional site, your username may violate Wikipedia username policies. Please see WP:USER ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

whoops. I was rolling back his edit and dropping a template at the same time you were. My rollback failed but the template went through. Feel free to remove it from users page if you like. Thanks - 4twenty42o (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please kindly stop your reverts before you actually discuss? There is probably some confusions regarding the facts. Thanks. 14.0.144.102 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please stop before we discuss? Thanks. 14.0.144.102 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I was reverting the edits because there is no edit summary nor is there any kind of explanation as to what was being done. To me and several editors it looked like vandalism. Please use edit summaries when removing large amounts of content from articles and/or changing redirects. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I understand you are reviewing many edits yet still I believe it'd be better if you can refrain from revert wars until you have familiarised yourself with the topic(s) concerned. 14.0.144.84 (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Solarra. Jeff Sams was best man in my wedding and we have know each other since 1979. YOu have the birthday wrong. It's 6/18/68. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.140.67 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, please cite a source when changing dates on Wikipedia, especially living persons per WP:BLP ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Hi, the alterations I made to the page entitled "1984 UEFA cup final" were not meant by me to be a test, but rather a genuine improvement of the page by adding an infoBox -- in keeping with more up-to-date pages of finals of the UEFA cup/Europa League e.g. the page entitled "2012 UEFA Europa League Final". Obviously I would prefer my alterations to remain, but if you have some kind of objection to the introduction on an infobox then I won't make a fuss about it. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.195.209 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit restored and message removed, in the future be sure to leave edit summaries to let other editors know what you are doing :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Hello. Yes you made a mistake by reverting my edit. The topic is simply never going to expand beyond two lines, and hasn't done for seven years now. What it relates to is whether a Muslim can or cannot perform the Hajj pilgrimage. This can easily be covered by transferring the two lines of text to the lead section of the Hajj article. 90.218.98.130 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Than please propose the merger using the proposal process. Single editor deletion of articles into a redirect can be construed as vandalism :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I took the liberty of proposing the mergers and placing the tags on the respective articles. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I am the editor of the online Perihelion Science Fiction magazine. I would appreciate it if ONLY the magazine submission from User:Crossdown/sandbox is reviewed and considered. A couple of my colleagues went ahead and tried to create Wikipedia articles. I thank them for their support, but these articles were not to be posted for review without my approval. I doubt they will be approved in any case; they violate Wikipedia standards all over the place. Again, please only consider the submission from User:Crossdown/sandbox. Cancel the submission review request from User:Lynn_Usher/sandbox. Thank you. Sam Bellotto Jr, editor, Perihelion Science Fiction. Crossdown (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please speak to Crossdown and collaborate with him, you vandalized an entry in his userspace which is why I reverted the edit. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

By some means I don't quite follow I had created two pages Motor Vessel Murree and MV Murree. MV Murree was the correct one with all edits. The other was a duplicate and lacked some content. I am in the process of trying to delete it totally and if you can help with that that would be useful. Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWAMWIR (talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 April 2013

I will sort this out, and explain what happened on TWAMWIR's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, my main concern is not to lose this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Murree

Robert /TWAMWIR — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWAMWIR (talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with the post i placed on GRAW. I have only advised people that a page exists for players of the game where they can arrange clan matches post results and talk to other gamers. I see nothing wrong with what I did.

Please advise before I take further action.

Ray Rudd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xl BOOSTER lx (talk • contribs) 10:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The link you posted is considered spam and not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a social network it is an encyclopedia. Hope this helps :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Again you have removed an edit by myself for no reason from GRAW. You have also failed to advise me why except for your standard message. You do not even no what my post related to and why I have set up GRAW RESPAWN. Please advise why or leave my posts alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xl BOOSTER lx (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above here [4] the links you are posting are considered spam on Wikipedia. Please see WP:SPAM. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

So if the link alone was removed and the reference left in place would you be happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xl BOOSTER lx (talk • contribs) 11:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The entire edit would be considered vandalism. Please see WP:''not''. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

According to your definitions should not the whole GRAW page be removed as it is a commercial product and just by having a presence it is an advert in itself. Self promotion is not allowed according to you!The definition of encyclopedia n. A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually. My post was an aspect many people would find interesting — even if you did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xl BOOSTER lx (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I am personally an avid gamer, heck if I still had GRAW I'd love to play you some day, but that particular edit does not have a place in an encyclopedia any more than a fanclub for Justin Bieber or an organization dedicated to Star Trek Conventions. The purpose of the article is to provide general information about the subject not be a space for fans of a game/movie/band/person/etc to advertise their respective groups. Hope this helps :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

No Sorry it does not help. Graw Respawn is a site set up to help people who play the game. It is therefore relative to the game itself and will allow people to understand how the game works on a real level. The link provided general information about how results and matches could be arranged by users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xl BOOSTER lx (talk • contribs) 11:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid we take a very strict line on this — unless the link is to an official Facebook page operated by the software publisher, we will not accept it and links to it will be removed. There is also issues with the content on your Facebook page being unsuitable — you include a phone number and personal information. Please do not add the link again. Thank You. Nick (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You reverted (incorrectly) someone's comments on User talk:Theroadislong. As a Talk Page Stalker you can comment, but you should not edit or revert other people's comments unless they are defamatory or clear vandalism. May be you should re-read Talk page guidelines as it might help. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Again an insider of a company and/or organization posting promotional material, but I can see where you are coming from. I had always thought policy was zero tolerance for such things, but that may be my military background firing off... ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

No. You are not supposed to edit someone else's comments even for grammar or typos. Please read the talk page instructions. You can only revert them if they are clear vandalism which in this case it was not. If the user is spamming, then add your comments and/or warn them in their talk page. When warranted, report at AIV for admin consideration or if not a vandalism issue, you can report at ANI. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So for User Talk spam material, the procedure is, comment, warn (if necessary) and move on. Got it thanks :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I would like to remove my posting. I think there would be no harm. Thank you for sending me a message. I will post again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoseManup (talk • contribs) 12:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_Pussy

someone has deleted the current band members (Jiga and Eva) and also look at the history it says "Jiga was born in age 15" ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ klm 80 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Solarra. Today I have noticed quite a number of your Huggle edits. Most of what you do is fine, but some of your edits look to me as though they have been made without sufficient thought. For example, your recent edit to Heavy Items Such As Books, Record Albums, Tools reverted a redirect of an article about an album to the article about its artist. It does not look to me as though the album warrants an article of its own, in which case the redirect is well within Wikipedia practice. If you made the edit fully aware of what you were doing, because you think that there is a good reason why the album should have its own article, then you were wrong to rollback the edit, and also wrong to post a message to the editor whose work you reverted saying that the edit "didn’t appear constructive", rather than giving a proper explanation of why you disagree. If, however, as seems more likely, you acted because the edit superficially looked in Huggle like vandalism, then you were wrong to simply click on the Huggle button without further checking. Huggle is very good at indicating edits that may well be vandalism, but it is not a substitute for intelligent assessment of each case. When you made that revert, I had myself already seen the same edit in Huggle, checked both the edited article and the target of the redirect, and decided that the edit was legitimate. You need to do the same. Many edits in Huggle that I think may be vandalism I check in a browser first, and simply click on the big red button only in really blatant cases of vandalism. If this seems like a big fuss about one small mistake, I am just taking this one example to illustrate my concerns, because, as I have said above, I have seen a number of edits that I was not entirely happy about. Finally, can I emphasise once again that most of your edits are fine, and I am not trying to put you off, but just trying to help you make your success:failure ratio better. (It will never be 100:0, because we all make mistakes sometimes, but it should be possible to achieve something like 99:1.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, as a general rule I usually veer on the side of status quo a little much it seems :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

You said "rest in piece" to Ebert. That's inappropriate, he's still intact. Deignknits (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Heyyyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.116.127 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism before reporting to AIV. It seems (have done this before) that you report vandals with only one warning (a Level 1). For example the report on User talk:XXNebraskFanXx. It seems to be a vandal, but you issued only a low level warning and for "unconstructive editing". In order to block, except for blatantly defamatory or racist edits for example, we need at least a Level 3 for the issue being considered (e.g. vandalism, blatant spam). A Level 3 at least clearly says they may be blocked if they don't stop. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Be careful with bot driving: two of you appear to have had a mid-air collision. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

hi im superman1091 what are you trying to say

Not really sure what in this edit warranted reversion... as best I can tell, "first team debut" is indeed the proper phrasing; either way, I think it could have at least used an edit summary.

P.S. Love all the pink on this page. :) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it looked like vandalism to an artist page. Thanks :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

What about that looked like vandalism? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

When I first read the change, it appeared to be someone changing words to vandalize the page, rereading it a makes me second guess that judgement. Very often individuals change words in a page as a form of stealth vandalism, on first glance, that appeared to be the case here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I have no intention to make any disruptive editing in Wikipedia. The editing I made at Multiply page was additional information I gathered from many correspondence and even face-to-face interviews with some Multiply users regarding their present feeling toward the new Multiply. Even the link I tried to include was just a sample of the page that accommodate the complaints from these Multiply users after their previous complaints at Multiply's Facebook page was ignored and even deleted. For your record, I'm not affiliated with the link I tried to add. I got it from one of the persons I interviewed.

I'm going to edit it again, and I hope you could at least check it first before considering my edit a spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinthecrow (talk • contribs) 08:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit in question was negative unsourced content. In addition the Facebook link posted constitutes spam per WP:SPAM, not to mention your edits were identical to those made from an IP user who was blocked here [5][6]. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Hello Solarra,

I would like to know for which touroperator is Air Mediterranee operating from Tangier??

Because in The Netherlands and Belgium nobody know somethin about this flight.

I'm afraid I do not know, however if you got to the Teahouse here I am certain a user should be able to help you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Oke thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.188.105 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This was not vandalism, I am merely putting on the possible outcomes for the next matches. What is wrong with that? (84.187.179.32 (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC))

I did not say the edit was vandalism, merely unsourced as such please source the edit and there will be no issues :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.152.80 (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that you restored a BLP issue about the father on Michael Barker (drummer) . Sure the son is a troll, but that the father supports him is not cited. Please be more careful. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I was just supporting the judgement made by YuMaNuMa here. The contents themselves weren't the issue to me, by a established editor on RCP reverting the edit, I assumed s/he did the due diligence of making sure the contributions were sourced in the reference material. In the future I'll make sure to due the research myself. I generally am pretty conservative when it comes to BLP, thanks for catching the oversight :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Yeah, that's why I was surprised. You're usually pretty solid but hey, we all make mistakes. Heck, yesterday, I blocked ClueBot NG :)[7]

Anyway, I've left some additional comments on the article talk page. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to give you credit, you made me LOL there :-) Refreshing to know that even long time veterans goof every once in a while. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

He did not mention it in the edit summary, anyway thanks for the notification! Faizan (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's incredible that you are actually actively insisting on misgendering Lana Wachowski in the Matrix article. Shame on you. 87.218.178.235 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not misgendering, at the time she was a he and "his" name at the time was Larry, it wasn't until after the movie the sex change was completed.

Note: Please do not use personal attacks on a users talk page, thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 00:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Completeness" is irrelevant, and also subjective anyway. What matters, even by Wikipedia's own standards, is that her name is now Lana and — at least so far as anyone can tell — she openly identifies as a woman. 87.218.178.235 (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The individual in question, is credited in the film as "Larry" hence why it appears that way in the article. Please do not change the film credit without consensus on the talk page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Sorry, but why did you change my edit for Miss Universe 2012? I had a big time put on that. C'mon ask first before you act, or better think first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.194.2 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit appeared to be vandalism. However, after reviewing all your edits in their entirety I have restored the edits and removed the warning from your talk page. In the future please use edit summaries to explain your edits so passing patrollers don't jump on someone adding dubious words to a Miss Universe article don't think it is Vandalism :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.48.202 (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am outstanding thanks for asking <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

IP 69, do not make any more edits like this one again. Solarra was being extremely kind in issuing such a mild warning to you. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't care much one way or the other about Danny's userpage, but these IPs & SPAs are getting to worked up over a trivial matter. Your diligence in protecting the Project is greatly appreciated.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, just fulfilling my role as a recent changes patroller :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

It's not a trivial matter to those who are actual military or veterans who have been wounded and lost friends. SCOTUS ruled in the SV case that true speech is the cure for false speech.ComancheDoc (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have actually served, been injured, and lost friends in combat. That being said, if you have an issue with this user's user page, please raise it on his talk page instead of vandalizing it. Even if the page he has written isn't honest or is fictional, it is his right to have his userpage as he wishes it within Wikipedia policies. Thank you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Hey Solarra! I saw you tagged 40Budz for speedy deletion, however, under the wrong criterion. I changed it to {{db-a7}} from what you tagged it as {{db-g1}}. Just wanted to give you a heads up about tagging articles with the correct criteria, or criterion. I think WP:FIELD is a good guide to tagging articles, so if you want, you can look that over and use it as a reference point. Thanks for your work! -- LuK3 (Talk) 03:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

By the time I had gone back to fix it, you already had, thanks! :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I redirected this article to Eighteen Arms of Wushu because that is the traditional list of weapons used in Chinese martial arts. Sorry for not explaining that correctly in my edit summary. 71.213.175.82 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

PLease i am doing a project on sand animation but i cannot find any more artists please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.88.241.6 (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I would start with this individual and continue here. I have 0 knowledge on the subject and am afraid I cannot help you past support with copyediting :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I had to LOL when I saw this: [8]. Thanks again. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern with recent edits made to the article 2010s in fashion. However, I fail to see why I have received a notification for my edits. You will find that they are all independently sourced and verified with independent citation. Many of my recent edits have been made in response to another user who has repeatedly altered or removed information without independent citation, instead citing his own opinions as rationale for these alterations. This is the user whom you should be addressing in regards to edits on this particular article.66.170.204.148 (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

All that was meant to say, is be aware of your closeness to the subject and be sure to keep a neutral point of view, you seemed to be really passionate about the subject and I wanted to ensure that you stay dispassionate :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For protecting LucasArts.  TOW  talk  05:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed that content from The Last Temptation of Christ because it had no source. That was a considered act on my part, not a mistake. My edit summary, "no source", should have been self-explanatory. You should not have reverted me. 203.118.187.125 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The content is tagged to have the references improved, rather than removing the content, might I suggest taking the initiative and finding the sources for the content :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

You can of course suggest whatever you like. However, as there are no sources there at present, it's perfectly appropriate to remove the content concerned. That is what is usually supposed to happen to unsourced content. Restoring it was incorrect. 203.118.187.125 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

References added, seems the content in question was all 100% valid, thanks for being patient! ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Eggbelly should not be deleted because it is a slang term for Dr. Robotnik in universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggbelly (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you said as much on the redirects, talk page, let us see what the admins decide :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to revert to your version. Anyway, it was just deleted so end of issue. :) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On the Tweed River (New South Wales) page, under the Flooding sub-section, it states that in 2013, the area was hit now a minor flood, but was actually hit now a major flood. The cited reference does state that it was a major flood, but the error of of minor flood was written on the Wikipedia page.

58.164.5.131 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Greyden Campbell

Thank you for pointing this out, I have removed the warnings from your talk page. That being said, please ensure to use edit summaries to ensure that your edits are not misinterpreted for vandalism again :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Solarra,

I noticed my edit was removed due to the fact that I was unable to provide a source. That's fine.

Just to comment, however, that some factual entries are difficult to confirm with a source link — I was, for example, updating the fact that the track in question was heavily used in a Levi jeans campaign shortly after the album was launched. I can provide no source for this — other than my own memory. It was this commercial that got me interested in the band in the first place. Having searched for a copy online of the commercial, I am unable to find it.

However, it's hardly a critical update :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.55.154 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I just spent a couple of hours updating Lourdes Pérez' wikipedia entry (Life and Work) and (Other film music). All absolutely legitimate updates to reflect the last few years. You didn't just remove "an inappropriate link" (which one was that?) but actually removed all the information I added. There was no link to a promotion or selling site nor was there any copyright violation. All were links to verify the information. What exactly was the problem and how do we restore the information that I so carefully entered? Thank you. - Annette D'Armata

The problem lied with the MySpace link. Social networks are not accepted as legitimate sources, and are often linked to articles as spam. That being said, I have restored the edit, minus the MySpace link you had as a reference and removed the warnings from your talk page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm gonna check out that musician. She sounds lovely :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Thank you for restoring the info. The section I added "Other film music" is still missing in action, however. Can these be returned also? Thanks. 70.162.8.88 (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Annette

I can't find the specific change you are looking for, however feel free to go through the change history and see if you can see it. I restored everything I had reverted minus the MySpace reference, I did notice other editors have taken things off as well, I would ask them :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Stock Model is not a PROMOTIONAL AD. Why didnt you google it first? Im looking at what people have posted on your page and it look like you love bothering people that not doing anything negative. No offense but- A LAW STUDENT WITH THIS MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS TO FLAG DOWN A PHRASE... AT ALMOST TWO IN THE MORNING???Shareemichelle (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Please do not personally attack me on my talk page, if you have an issue with an edit I have made please discuss that, not me :-)

I have removed the Speedy Deletion tag, as the links are now gone. Links are great to use for references or to link a official website but are generally frowned upon on Wikipedia, see WP:SPAM. If you are looking for guidance on your first article please check here :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this edit really count as spam linking? Seems to me that the user added it WP:AGF. Isn't a warning a bit to harsh? --Vincent Liu (what?) 06:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Replacing every link to the group with an off-Wikipedia link sure seems like a spam category edit to me. If I'm in error with WP:SPAM please let me know :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Not sure if you saw this revert I did on your talk page. I've warned the editor. It seems like they may end up at AN/I soon. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: IP 99 has been blocked. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a doll, thank you <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

and I put an rpp on for his talk page. still being belligerent. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 08:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

also, your talk page is pretty long, have you ever though of using auto-archiveing? I personally have mine set up to archive month-old threads. I find it makes the page far easier to navigate. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 08:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd do it but I have no idea how :-( I manually archive it when it gets too bad. If you can do it you will have much Wikilove from me! <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Thankyou for your advice. It was not a test but a genuine attempt to edit and correct the terms used to describe the actions of MTP. A weelchair "allows" a paraplegic to do more than they could without a wheelchair but for a person who is able to walk using a weelchair "controls" or limits what the person is capable of. In effect MTP controls and limits the USB interface preventing unlimited direct memory access to a device (this can help to prevent memory errors) but to state that it "allows" access implies full freedom of access, this is not the case.

The Drawbacks changes are user observable differences between USB and MTP access to mobile computing devices. The security flaw can be recreated by any user of an MTP controlled device on any Windows PC, try it yourself.

My appologies if my editing is amature, this is the first time I'm trying to edit Wikipedia, feel free to provide a better description than my own, I'll read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.152.37 (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I restored the edits and corrected the 'facilitate' typo. That typo is what made me think you were test editing. Thanks! :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 08:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I am an experienced Wikipedia contributor who chooses not to be registered and who uses different IP addresses that all may be shared with other people. But you didn't know that, so thanks for the "welcome to Wikipedia".

You said I supplied unsourced material that has been reverted. In fact the only edits I've made from this IP address that had been reverted when you posted that were edits for style, not content, and therefore did not need sourcing. The reverter was in error according to the MOS, and I've unreverted the edits and cited the relevant section. So thanks also for calling my attention to the reverts.

--65.94.50.223 (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally I post the sourcing notice when an individual from an anon IP posts a large amount of content with no sourcing. Happy editing :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

On the Tau Kappa Epsilon wikipedia page there is a subsection labeled Kappa Sigma Fraternity that contains content that is 100% incorrect and needs to be deleted. at every attempt I made to edit it myself and remove this obscene and hateful text, you "Solarra" undo my deletion and return the page back to its former state to include the false information. FIX THE PAGE, you are obviously an immature person who has ill feelings towards Tau Kappa Epsilon, you're a Kappa Sigma brother, or you're obviously not reading the lies you are so intent on keeping on the Tau Kappa Epsilon wikipedia page. FIX THE PAGE, NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.228.23 (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Please refrain from personal attacks on a user's talk page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

This edit and others were legitimate blanking and removing sourced content. However, the bestiality vandalism was embedded vandalism and has been reverted. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Why was the addition of these two taxa to the article "unconstructive"?--Macrochelys (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know which revision you are talking about, I cannot seem to find it :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I mean these three revisions, which you reverted.--Macrochelys (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Honest mistake, I have corrected it on the users talk page and see you already did on the page in question. Thanks for being an awesome wingperson <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I'm glad I could help then, and thank you for the Barnstar :-) --Macrochelys (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You added some irrelevant tags to Andrea Perego. A single paragraph does not yet need to be divided into sections, it forms its own lead, and it did not seem in need of reorganisation. On the other hand it would have been useful to add the {{link rot}} template, as well as the appropriate {{BLP sources}} and {{notability}} which you added. Please take a little more care when tagging articles. Thanks. PamD 13:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, sometimes I like to think more is better :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Hello, Solarra. You have new messages at Faizan Al-Badri's talk page.
Message added 14:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Solarra, I'd appreciate your not editing my edits! You reverted my edit on the "Johannesburg" entry on the ground that I did not explain the edit. I did. Quite clearly. The original content contained an urban myth, without citation. I took it out, and explained that it was an urban myth. Please leave it alone. Rgds, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.248.182 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, please do not removed sourced, content. Rather please build consensus on its removal on the articles talk page. :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

It wasn't sourced, the link is dead, nor was it ever a credible source. Plus the content is contrary to established fact, which IS sourced. If someone states that Johannesburg is in Kenya, and I correct that, I don't need to put it on a talk page to get "consensus". Do a *little* research yourself, before presuming to revert someone else's edits. Especially using an automated tool which suggested that my "mistake" was in not summarising my edit (which I did).

Thanks for being a Wikipedia editor. Michaelandsandy (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What in the devil is up with me trying to add that he worked for DMA design to the disam. page? Your automated bot keeps auto reverting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.247.179 (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Restored, perhaps it might be worthwhile to start an article on him to source it :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Hi Sollarra, I did not intend to vandalize any pages. I also did not realize about inserting external links. I was only trying to correct some information regarding my father. 1st, the 10th Street artist club had his name misspelled, 2nd My father is a WPA artist and should be included in the list. I do not understand why you removed my father's name even without the external link? My father was the co-inventer of the Carborundum print making technique along with Dox Thrash and should be credited on the Dox Thrash page. At some point I would like to have a Wiki entry for my father. He is probably one of the few surviving WPA artists if not the sole surviving WPA artists.

Thanks Cmesibov (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)cmesibov

Hi Solarra,

Sorry about not describing the edits. First of all, I did an unconventional way to move around the content from one section to another -- the full article is simply too long and I didn't want to use the article edit for that. Hence, I did the edit section by section. Then, there was a problem with the Wikimedia server kept giving me error, causing problems to the earlier edits. The latest one at 15:46, 7 April 2013‎ is correct and up to date. Basically there was a mistake on the recent episodes being listed as a new series when they are still on the current series 49 2012-2013. Please revert to the 15:46, 7 April 2013‎ edition.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.152.92.210 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for being a Wikipedia editor :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Solarra, I put my User page back — not sure why you deleted it, I'm updating and editing — please don't delete, happy to modify if you see issues. thx.. dez 203.16.243.200 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Our block-evading troll is up to five accounts, at least: 99.104.185.17 (primary account), 200.233.70.48, 64.75.159.129, 196.12.59.12, 202.88.225.150. An admin told me he's using proxy servers, so that's why they're in cities all over the world. ;) Most have been blocked. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Is he still posting personal attacks? ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 02:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

All five accounts have been blocked from one month to one year. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I got your note.[9] Thanks. I was in the process of reverting him here on your page, but you got to it first. You're too quick for me. :p His behavior is actually sad and pathetic. :( Here's the latest count of his socks 'n' blocks (a new term I just created lol): 99.104.185.17 (primary account), 200.233.70.48, 64.75.159.129, 196.12.59.12, 202.88.225.150, 46.209.250.1 Have a great week. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They call me The Wikimon... I just wanted to say Hi, because I see that you and I are regular Counter-Vandalism members and you seem to be beating me by a whisker... Anyways, I'm a new guy here and I thought I should converse with as many users as possible... Please don't tell me your in college cause your talk page is real cute and unexpected from a teenager... (Ok I'm kidding, I was just trying to know if you go to college or school)!! Anyways please do look up on my contributions and I have also proposed a WikiProiject on Apps... If you can please help with submitting your views... Thanks and bye!!! The Wikimon (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how much I can help as I am not a computer genius by any stretch, but I am more than happy to help however I can in my fields of expertise :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Solarra. Three days ago, I posted you a message expressing concerns about your use of Huggle. You thanked me for my message, but I am afraid you are still having similar problems. What is more, I see there have been numerous messages to you about the problems, both before and after I posted my message. As I have said before, and as others have said, most of your work is good, and it would be a pity if you lost rollback rights because of a minority of cases where you are insufficiently careful, but it really is far too large a minority.

There is no point in repeating details about a whole string of incidents that you have already had pointed out to you, but I will just comment on the single case that concerns me most, of those that I have seen. In this series of reverts: [10], [11], [12], you repeatedly added content which was both unambiguous vandalism and a WP:BLP violation. Your first revert, here, accidentally restored the vandalism which was hidden amongst a great deal of other stuff, and is the sort of mistake that is very easy to make, but your subsequent reverts restored the unacceptable material in one short paragraph where it was clearly visible, and where you could not possibly have failed to see it had you made any attempt at all to check what you were reverting. Also, in the same series of reverts, you repeatedly claimed that you were reverting "unexplained removal of content", despite the explanation given in the edit summary here. It is really difficult to avoid the conclusion that, after the first revert, you just thought "here is the same person reverting me again", and blindly reverted again and again, without checking either the content that you were reverting or the edit summaries that the other editor gave.

Every time you log into Huggle, you see a prominent message reminding you that you are responsible for your edits, and that Huggle needs care. Unless you substantially increase the amount of care you exercise, your rollback rights will be removed.

There is another point, which is much more minor, but which I am concerned about. I see that you made a talk page post in which you wrote "I post the sourcing notice when an individual from an anon IP posts a large amount of content with no sourcing". This suggests that how you treat an edit depends on whether it is made by a registered user or an anonymous user. How you treat an edit should depend on the merits of the edit itself, and an edit is no less acceptable from an editor who is not logged in to an account than the same edit would be from a logged-in editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I see much effort was placed into your message so I will address the concerns with an equal bit of time and effort. Since your post, and moreso after the particular incident you mentioned I have significantly toned down my reversions. Frankly, I've taught myself the tools all over again and reread all the essays, read several talk pages of the most prolific Counter-Vandalism Unit members, pretty much going over how I do the job which has been entrusted to me. I take the role very seriously as I am sure you see by both this post and the fact that I immediately correct errors upon discovery. The particular incident you mentioned, and others mentioned are black marks of which I want to have 0 of. That being said, as you can see here here, I have made over 4500 edits in the past 3-4 days, of which 90% are counter-vandalism work, I have done a lot of work in a relatively short amount of time, this is not an excuse, merely an observation, as again, I am striving for as close to 0 as possible.

Specific changes in my process:

1. I do not warn for vandalism for date changes that look ambiguous, I use the revert summary/message the user to source the date change.
2. I do not assume factual errors unless I am 100% sure of it or am knowledgeable on the topic.
3. If there is any doubt in my mind if an edit is vandalism or if there is embedded vandalism because of a bot, intermediate edit, etc I use Twinkle to revert it to the last good version.
4. For BLP issues, if the article is new content on a living person, I ensure all content is neutral and if there is negative content (scandal, criminal history, etc), it is sourced from a reliable source.
5. If an edit seems to be spam, I ensure the edit actually is, even if the user is adding a link to a website they created a username resembling, I assume they were acting in good faith. That being said, I ensure adherence to WP:SPAM.
6. If by the grace of God I do make a mistake, I immediately revert the edit (if I see it) or if it is brought to my attention, drop everything I am doing to correct it.

To the second point, I scrutinize any addition of content to a page, not just an IP. Logged in or not, standards of sourcing, BLP policies, etc apply when any edit is made regardless of who makes it a brand new IP user or a bureaucrat. What was meant by that response was that I pay particular attention to large amounts of content added by IPs/users with no prior or very few prior edits. I personally believe and how I read Wikipedia policy is that factual accuracy is the paramount mission of the project and ensuring that is more important important than any other single goal.

Every editor is important on Wikipedia and I strive to respond and create amicable resolution to every single issue raised here or elsewhere. I care about every editor (yes even the vandals :-P) and wish everyone to cooperate amicably in the most win-win way possible.

I absolutely appreciate the care and the patience you and the community have shown me and look forward to earning the trust that has been placed in me.

Regards, Kaela ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

I will not intervene on the issue regarding Solarra's Huggle usage. I simply wanted it on record that, based on my experiences with her and observations of her editing, Solarra is among the nicest and most passionate editors I've ever come across. She treats everyone with an extraordinary amount of respect and civility, even when they clearly don't deserve it, and has always participated with a cooperative spirit. She has also been extremely helpful to new editors — both registered and unregistered — and has presented a very supportive attitude towards them. I believe that her editing history will verify that she has always been willing to learn and improve, and has readily acknowledged and corrected her mistakes whenever they have been brought to her attention. The project would greatly benefit from having a lot more editors like Solarra. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

List of marinas: Difference between revisions (Reverted edits by Birdhampool (talk) identified as spam (HG))

Why did you revert these additions to the marina list? The two entries by Birdhampool seem to be legitimate Marinas which seem to exist in the locations indicated. I googled them and they came up as real. http://www.royalclarencemarina.org/ http://www.birdhampool.co.uk/ Am I missing something obvious or have you made an error in deciding these additions to the list were spam? Ken Heaton (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The user was a promotional account as you can see from here and was adding a non-notable marina, probably an employee or perhaps the owner. I tagged the entry as spam, as he added both together, while this link might be ok the other one was clearly not. Thank you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Ken, Solarra's edit was perfect. Obvious nonsense spam. A user named Birdhampool adding a listing for Birdham Pool Marina to the article. Hello?! This is a no-brainer. Further, the editor has been permanently blocked from editing; therefore, any edits s/he's made can be be reverted without explanation. I also should mention that just because something is "real" does not at all mean that it's notable. In fact, most "real" things are are not notable. This is a basic tenet of Wikipedia, which has a high standard for notability. Although I'm not doubting that those marinas are legitimate, keep in mind that that this is an encylopedia and anyone can create a website. That's why only reliable sources are to be used to verify content (once it's been determined of course that its worthy of inclusion). For the record, those two websites are most obviously connected; they use one company's exact same template and were added at the same time by the spamming editor. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Solarra, if you wouldn't mind, can you please timestamp your signatures? It's very confusing to editors when comments have no time/date. Thanks! :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert on my talk page and also keep the good work on fighting vandalism. Tolly4bolly 10:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You might have missed my message just before that discussion on your reverts, but this is for the amount of effort that you have put in... And yeah, you rock at Counter Vandalism!

The Wikimon (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Solarra, I'm sorry if I've hurt or offended you in any way, didn't mean to :-( The Wikimon (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Believe me you didn't! Read above, I mentioned I wish to help you with your project if I can at all :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank God! I thought you were pissed. No, I just want support from people for the idea. I think I will be able to manage with help from some other friends of mine... Thanks a lot! And if you don't mind, I'm gonna add you to my friends list, which is gonna be created soon on my user page... The Wikimon (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Something happened here!···Vanischenu (alt) 11:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mid air collision with Cluebot it seems, Huggle seems to be acting strangly, rebooted it. Fixed and thanks! :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, strange things like that sometimes happen if you try to edit at pretty well exactly the same time as a bot. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Also requested page protection for that page, seems to be a lot of vandalism on it recently. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done for two days. Let's see if that is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice kitten. Thanks and regards :) ···Vanischenu (alt) 11:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for changing the form of English from British English to American English, I use American English and did not recognize that the word was properly spelled but in British English. I will check the Country that the article is most likely discussing before making future edits. Thank you for your comments. sssssss340 13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. That wasn't meant as a warning, and don't feel hampered in editing! Merely think of it as a guideline, remember we are all friends here working collectively as a group :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Solarra. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear sir, I wrote an essay in Telugu wikipedia about okra seed oil and thinking to translate it to English.so I edited the redirect of Okraseed oil.so if you have no objection regarding this,I will write about Okra seed oil.Please see my editing in telugu wiki.

• http://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%AC%E0%B1%86%E0%B0%82%E0%B0%A1%E0%B0%97%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%82%E0%B0%9C%E0%B0%B2_%E0%B0%A8%E0%B1%82%E0%B0%A8%E0%B1%86

Palagiri (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all I'm not a sir :-P But I have no problem with creating an article, in fact I encourage it, you don;t need my permission :-)! At the time you blanked the redirect with this edit with no edit summary or explanation of what you were doing. If you wish to create the article, let me help you by linking you here! <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a long-time volunteer at the Third Opinion project, and I'd like to thank you for helping out there. We can always use more help (and the same is true at all of the content dispute resolution venues here at Wikipedia), so your help is especially appreciated. One quick request: When you give a 3O, would you please remove the dispute from the list at the 3O page? (I generally do it when I decide to give the opinion, rather than waiting until after, but that's up to you.) That way other volunteers can go directly to the active disputes, rather than the ones which have already been handled. It's good to have you around and keep up the good work! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem and I am happy to help as I am new to the content dispute resolution process, I thank you for filling me in on the details. As I have resolved a couple dispute resolutions here and there, I'd love to create win-win where I can for other people :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 16:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Solarra. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Božidar Bobby Gabershek, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: highly distinguished martial artist is an assertion of importance. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 11:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, when I tagged it, the article was one sentence. Apparently this guy is quite the butt kicker! ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Further response: A Google search here seems to return only 38 results for this individual most of which social media or forum entries. Furthermore I should mention that the user who created the article here seems to be the article's subject, making it an autobiographical article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Chequers, with all due respect, the article is a bunch of completely unsourced, self-promotional nonsense, and should've been speedily deleted. Your statement that there's an assertion that he's a "highly distinguished martial artist" is simply a puffy, completely unsourced claim in the lead. Where's the proof that Gabershek is notable?? There's absolutely none. This is not a fansite. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

With respect I am going to re-nominate the article for speedy deletion based on the evidence here :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully support the renomination. The article is nothing but spam with zero evidence of notability. I did a Google News search and found nothing on this guy. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just read the A7 guidelines at WP:SPEEDY and it says:
"The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible."
So I understand why Chequers declined the deletion: because the article does in fact make an assertion of notability (that Gabershek is a "highly distinguished martial artist"), even if it is completely unsourced. However, perhaps the second part of the above quote validates using A7 because it can certainly be argued that the claim of importance is not credible. If all it takes to avoid being speedily deleted is to make a claim of importance, even if it's absolutely false or unsupported, that's unfortunately a very low standard. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed "highly distinguished" from the lead since it's a blatant violation of WP:PEACOCK. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is a quick process for uncontentious deletions that don't need to go through a proper deletion process. A credible claim of importance or significance is deliberately a very low standard — if notability is in doubt it should go to wp:AFD, and if GNEWS comes up blank then an AFD nomination would usually result in deletion. Of course if someone looks into the claims and spots a hoax then that is a reason for speedy deletion, but it needs to be a blatant hoax — if an article asserts that someone won the silver medal in the 2012 Olympic men's polevault then either they are notable or the article is a hoax. If it asserts they won Gold for extreme sunbathing in the 2012 Summer Olympics then you can delete it as a blatant hoax, if it merely describes them as an extreme sunbather and their High School champion for martial Arts then the assertion of importance is not really credible and a speedy deletion would be correct. The trick with speedies is to remember that these are ones where the community is so sure of the need for deletion that it is OK for an individual admin to delete them without a separate community discussion. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 17:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I learn something new everyday, thank you for taking the time for that very informative post. I was under a different impression when it came to WP:SPEEDY, but now I know, and knowing is half the battle :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 17:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. I'm very pleased to have met you and hope to do so again. Though I can't blame you if you've noticed an element of inconsistency here. Of course part of that is down to the individual knowledge of the admin, one admin might know that a particular claim was not credible because either that sport never took hold in a particular country or for some other reason. I remember declining a speedy on a new Professional American footballer, only to have someone else explain to me that he clearly failed the minimum age for that sport and for them with that knowledge it wasn't a credible claim of importance.

By the way, If I might make one small suggestion, there are editors who consider that a barnstar for signing a guestbook rather devalues the whole idea of barnstars, so please don't give me one of those and you might want to reconsider offering them in general:) Cheers and happy editing. ϢereSpielChequers 18:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Chequers, you seem like a great guy (I assume), but I think your reasoning is quite a stretch in this instance. The article is obviously just puffy, promotional nonsense with absolutely nothing to back any of it up. Even admin Drmies looked at it and concluded right away that A7 applies because the assertion ("A highly distinguished martial artist") is pure hype and has no credibility. Even the article's creator, who added it just hours ago, gave up and said to delete the article. So, frankly and with all due respect, I think it is ridiculous that the article still exists. I urge you to look at it again and do the right thing, rather than delaying the inevitable. Please ask yourself one question: Would the article have a snowball's chance in hell of being saved at AfD? Be honest. ;) In any case, I appreciate your response. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I find the wording of speedy deletion criterion A7 very unsatisfactory. The criterion is supposed to be invalidated by "any credible claim of significance or importance". What does "credible" mean? What does "significance or importance" mean? My idea of "credible" may be very different from yours. From experience, I think that WereSpielChequers tends to give a more liberal interpretation of "credible claim of significance or importance" than I would, but this time I agree with him. The article says that its subject is "highly distinguished", and from what the author of the article says, that may be true. At present the article does not give any evidence that it is true, but it is only reasonable to allow time for evidence to be provided. Speedy deletion, where neither the author of the article nor anyone else is given a chance to do so, is not appropriate when the article makes a claim which would justify keeping the article if evidence can be provided. If no evidence is produced within 10 days, the article will still be deleted. As for being puffery, I rather agree, and if it were a little more so then it would be suitable for deletion as blatant promotion, but it is not really blatant enough for that either. All in all, a borderline article, and in borderline cases we give time for improvement before deciding whether to delete or not. (Incidentally, is it true that "admin Drmies looked at it and concluded right away that A7 applies"? I haven't managed to find where he said that.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Solarra, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, please contact me and I will remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kindly :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

...for the banstar. Not everyone would have been so well-disposed to me after I was so critical of your editing. However, no doubt you took in the fact that I said quite explicitly (and more than once), that most of your work is good, and the criticisms apply only to a minority of cases. Do keep up the good work — but be careful. The point is to slow down a little with your use of Huggle. Even if you get 10% less good work done, if you also make 80% fewer mistakes, it will be worth it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, you came from a position of love and caring wanting to see my work be the best it can possibly be, which is why you more than earned it :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Solarra, could you remove the section you added to the article — you used the words "The Silk Route Museum is also a name associated with Yasheng Group, ... and has been accused of securities fraud" which is incorrect, the museum has not been accused in any of the sources you listed. Furthermore, the Yasheng Group is not associated with the silk route museum, but the silk route fund, which is a different entity. Finally, source 5 does not lead to an actual article and I cannot find one which links any wrong-doing with the museum or even the fund — consider all the people Bernie Madoff sponsored who weren't involved just sponsored.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The silk route museum is associated with the 'Silk Route Fund' and 'Yasheng Group' here and the group itself is associated with securities fraud here and here. Katie is right about the fraud, wrong about the museum not existing and being non-notable. I did however update the source for the controversies section :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Solarra, for keeping an eye out for vandalism on my personal pages. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As always I am more than happy to help :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, it's spelt "licence" in British English - "license" (as a noun rather than a verb) is an American English variant. 2.27.55.34 (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally changing between English variants is not generally necessary, and in some cases can be considered edit testing or vandalism. Welcome to Wikipedia :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Solarra. You have new messages at Faizan Al-Badri's talk page.
Message added 15:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan(talk) 15:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the hard to read that it needs a proper reformatting. However, I don't think it's too tedious, because most of straight set matches are only a single line, it might need some shortening. The ones that goes to three line are three setters. And also a main problem is that the person that said it's to tedious i mean Fyunck is actually making things to complicated. For example.

Her next opponent was the first woman ever to score a 'Golden Set' in a Grand Slam event in the Open Era, Wild Card Yaroslava Shvedova of Kazakhstan. Williams dominated the first set taking the first five games before Shvedova took a games, Williams eventually won the set. However, Shvedova came back in the second set breaking the Williams serve in the sixth game and eight game, she also didn't face a single break point in the second. The third set came on serve until the tenth game, where Williams' broke with some errors from the Wild Card, and she served out for the match, digging out a brilliant backhand lob to set up her one and only match point.

This can be shorten in a way.

Her next opponent was the first woman ever to score a 'Golden Set' in a Grand Slam event in the Open Era, Wild Card Yaroslava Shvedova of Kazakhstan. Williams dominated the first set taking a 5-0 and eventually won the set 6-1. However, Shvedova came back in the second set winning it 6-2. The third set came on serve, until Williams' broke to lead 6-5 with some errors from the Wild Card, and she served out for the match, digging out a brilliant backhand lob to set up her one and only match point.

The problem is he doesn't want to show scores, which i find odd as the readers will be able to understand it better with the score.

Also he wants things to be numbers to be written as words than numbers, which i don't get as numbers are easier to read than numebrs written as words.Dencod16 (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the addition of scores to a sports article regarding a player or team is crucial, nearly all athletes and teams have the summaries of their major matches include the scores of said matches.

What I more meant was that the material needs to be broken up into sections and paragraphs. The way it was written when I reviewed the material was difficult to read through and somewhat verbose and mashed together. It needs a revision for readability more than content :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a test, Shoyteh. I was fixing minor typographical errors. 208.102.160.123 (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit appeared to me that you either test editing or vandalism :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}

Have you actually watched this movie? There are horrible acts of violence against people of color in this movie. This is a horrible racist movie and should never have been made. The director is British and knows nothing of American Politics.

Please put my comments back on Wikipedia because what I said is the truth!

American History X

This film is a snuff film. There are brutal acts of violence against people of color in this movie. Don't watch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.78.250 (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit constituted vandalism as it was unsourced, severely violated Neutral Point of View, and most of all was inflammatory and personal opinion. If you have also seen the movie the movie itself is about the main character (Edward Norton) overcoming his racism only to be too late to save the life of his brother, not the acts of racism themselves :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you watchlisted that page, but User:69.205.159.133, whose edits you reverted has created User talk:I updated the Elmira Jackals page, it took me over 2 hours to do so, you say i deleted information, and i did not, i simply added it into the right categories and then added more information, I do Not understand why you deleted it. I deleted that page because it's obviously misplaced, but wanted to pass along that editor's comment to you. DMacks (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :-) It's obvious the editor was acting in good faith and has since restored (and explained) his edits. I have removed the warning from their talk page and gave them a nice little Welcome :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 05:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

A quick note to say I've blocked this IP for 24 hours to given them a chance to calm down a bit! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 10:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Solarra, I'm not sure why you removed my additions to the Joan Aiken page? My position is that this Wikipedia page is being used for an 'unofficial' page on Facebook, so I would like to link from this article to the official Joan Aiken Facebook page. This is not a conflict of interest, it is in the interest of those who are seeking information about Joan Aiken, and I am that official source. Lizza LizzaAiken (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC) info@joanaiken.com

Lizza, I never reverted your edits :-) I merely pointed out that your username and the article you were primarily editing appeared to be a possible conflict of interest. All I wished to point out to you was Wikipedia policy regarding editing articles in which you have a possible connection to :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 11:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK Thanks for your care and concern! LizzaLizzaAiken (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

the intent of this was to request attention to anyone who can raise it for deletion. Can you please get this deleted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.131.2 (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

While that edit itself is vandalism and was rightly reverted, I have proposed the deletion of the article per you request :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

♥ :3 69.225.131.2 (talk)

Hello, Solarra. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Apps#Discussion.
Message added XapApp · talk · contribs 13:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Solarra, just wanted to say hi. Hey, I just noticed that your talk page is being auto-archived way too often. It looks like it's archiving every day. Haha. I think you can set it to archive when it reaches a certain size instead of by the number of days. But I've never seen anyone archive daily; it should be more like 30 days if you're programming it by number of days. You can ask someone like Yunshui about it. He's an awesome admin. Anyway, just wanted to say hello. Have fun. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I prefer my talk page only loaded with conversations that are current and relevant, nothing drives me more crazy than having to scroll forever :-P However, I did change it to two days though in case someone doesn't respond to something relatively right away. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Solarra, So I got a message that you've deleted a change I made because there was no citation, but I can't for the life of me find what change this was. Can you let me know the details and particulars? Cheers, Dr. Fuse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorfuse (talk • contribs) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Fuse, I happened to spot your inquiry while Solarra is away. She reverted this edit you made at Kytami. Her edit summary correctly says that you need to provide a reliable source when you change birth date information. Actually, you should always provide such evidence when you're changing any important content like that in an article. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I just reviewed the article. Amazingly, the lead had a birth year of 1980, while the infobox had 1973. There is no solid proof for either claim so I removed them both. And cite 3 is a huge violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. The cite says: Green, Mary Ellen (June 14-20, 2012). "Kytami rocks V.I.C. Fest". Monday Magazine. Retrieved July 8, 2012. This article reported that Kytami began playing violin at age three. A promotional page on Arts Victoria in September 2006 noted that Kytami had "23 years" of violin experience. An editor is not allowed to combine two separate statements from two different sources to form a conclusion that is not presented. What we know from those sources (assuming they're reliable) is that (1) she started playing violin at age 3, and (2) as of 2006, she's been playing for 23 years. Fine. But what we do not know is: How old was she in 2006?? That is not stated. So what is required is a source that definitively proves when she was born. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The "PROD" that you placed in this edit has been challenged in this edit by a user at an IP address with no other edits. No explanation was given. I think you are probably right about teh deletion. Would you consider taking the article to Articles for deletion? 80.168.237.80 (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Before you start bandying about false accusations, try to compare the changes, to determine whether the user is merely 'playing in the sandbox' or is actually making a useful contribution. An apology on my talk page would be nice. 208.102.160.123 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Solarra clearly made what I'm sure was an honest mistake with this edit. It is indeed vied, not viewed. Please keep in mind that Solarra is an extremely friendly editor who is only here to help, but sometimes even the best editors are not as careful as they should be. In any case, I'm certain she meant no offense. 208, I commented on your talk page. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks again for providing 3O at Talk:16:10. Not sure if you noticed, but I posted a follow-up question to your comment, about which sources exactly you're concerned about? I think I have a pretty good idea, but I'd like to be sure, just in case. If you could respond either here or on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate it. Cheers! Indrek (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded, if you need anything else do not hesitate to ask :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 10:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, based on WP:RS most of the sources you referred to are fine (I've explained in more detail on the article's talk page). However, the other editor involved in the dispute (User:HGJ345) has used your comment as an excuse to go on a rampant ref deleting spree throughout the article, also removing refs that you didn't even mention, and a lot of relevant content that those refs supported. Could you take a look at the recent edits in the article (full diff between your edit and latest revision here) and chime in on the talk page as to whether you think the article has benefited from those edits? Thanks! Indrek (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Unarchiving this for a quick bump. I'd appreciate your input, or alternatively just letting me know if you're too busy at the moment. Thanks! Indrek (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a cookie for being a great and friendly Wikipedian! LatinWolf (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Solarra!

I notice that you are fluent in Japanese. Do you edit on the Japanese Wikipedia? Do you do "article requests"? There are some articles that I would like to have started on the Japanese Wikipedia, and I would like to see which ones you are interested in.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Solarra for your contributions for the article Percy Williams but you made a mistake by reverting one of the edits where the vandal replaced "Percy Williams" with "Prabash Akmeemana", so I reverted your last edit because that caption is obviously not true, but thanks for keeping Wikipedia vandal free!

PBASH607 (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:16:10#outdated". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Solarra, thanks for suggestions on 9 April 2013 (UTC). Have a great day ! Archmarch (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits suggest that you might have something to contribute to the resolution of an editing conflict on the Raymond Ibrahim article. Your comments at talk:Raymond Ibrahim would be appreciated. Thanks.Mavigogun (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done I have added my take on the edit conflict and hopefully we can make an inroad into resolving it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 02:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I hate to be the bringer of bad news to somebody as cheery and upbeat as you Solarra but your name's been mentioned at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#16:10 I'm sure you'll be fine. Get out there and show them why you're one of Wikipedia's awesome! MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a dispute involving me per say, but more an issue I attempted to resolve before my accident. I'm back now and I'll try to get all the parties talking. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 01:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The DR/N bot actually already notified her (see User_talk:Solarra/Archive 2#Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.). Solarra just seems to have her talk page archived very aggressively :) Indrek (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Solarra,

Thanks for your message regarding Sinatra's In the Wee Small Hours. I admit that I do not quite understand how the citation coding works, but I do have a link that shows the album listed as 101 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, not 100 as the page said before and now does again.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531/frank-sinatra-in-the-wee-small-hours-20120524

Thanks, Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.216.41 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention Brian, and I do apologize for my absence. I have edited the article to reflect the inaccuracy :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 01:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your third opinion. Could you please clarify, at Talk:London_Millennium_Funicular#Survey, which new title you are supporting? The original proposal was Millennium Bridge Inclinator, and the editor who commented before you proposed Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift. Thanks. PamD 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your balanced third opinion on Busabout Wagga Wagga, and breaking the impasse.Mo7838 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

okay ... i wanna to know , is that u for changing oggy and the cockroaches season 5 soon?? and they will taliking etchother because ... when i ask to official oggy and the cockroaches fan page on facebook and they say "no , besides oggy season 4 just reallesed "

thnks

i hope u understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadaazahra (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide any free image of Roger Ebert for Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2013#Roger_Ebert_.28Rebert.29? --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not have any free images that would qualify I am afraid. I would contact his estate, they may be willing to accommodate you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 00:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
7		St. Mary Catholic Secondary School (Pickering, Ontario) (talk)						Add sources
536		Widescreen (talk)						Add sources
242		Press Your Luck (talk)						Add sources
859		Republic of Molossia (talk)						Add sources
20		National APIA Panhellenic Association (talk)						Add sources
223		Chandra Shekhar (talk)						Add sources
1,678		Microsoft Exchange Server (talk)						Cleanup
33		RSS editor (talk)						Cleanup
10		Sahatwar (talk)						Cleanup
43		Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey (talk)						Expand
409		Comparison of feed aggregators (talk)						Expand
713		Email client (talk)						Expand
8		Sinatra Sings the Songs of Van Heusen & Cahn (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
951		My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
281		Microsoft Entourage (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,407		Outlook Web App (talk)						Merge
6,140		Hotmail (talk)						Merge
567		Spam in blogs (talk)						Merge
2,717		Things Fall Apart (talk)						Wikify
9		Ivan Tedesco (talk)						Wikify
4,458		Transport Layer Security (talk)						Wikify
3		Shayan Zadeh (entrepreneur) (talk)						Orphan
1		Surahia (talk)						Orphan
13		MSDAIPP (talk)						Orphan
9		Farah Mendlesohn (talk)						Stub
7		United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii, 2014 (talk)						Stub
10		Hopes and Impediments (talk)						Stub
99		Hizbul Mujahideen (talk)						Stub
55		Roxana: The Fortunate Mistress (talk)						Stub
7		Tim Ferry (talk)						Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)