User talk:Alereon/Archive 1

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Alereon,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that that you don't have enough edits in the main article namespace. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. —Xyrael / 17:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved from userpage (all content moved)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_XP&oldid=12279654 I noticed your "Corrections: XP 64bit is for Itanium (not Itanium 2), there are two versions (one for AMD64, one for IA64."

Could you elaborate? I did not know there were 2 versions of XP 64bit. I ordered the Press Release of XP64bit Beta2 and It did not offer or ask for which 64bit architecture. XP 64bit was made for Itanium? I know the Intel EM64T architecture is based off the AMD64 architecture, couldn't the article be resorted to just those two architectures.

Thanks --x1987x 00:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• When Windows XP was released on October 25th, 2001, it was available for two architectures: x86-compatible processors, and Intel Itanium processors implementing the IA-64 instruction set. More recently, a new version of Windows XP was released for processors implementing the AMD64 instruction set. I consider these completely seperate versions, since they were released years apart, and software made for one is completely incompatible with the other. Alereon 03:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • *Windows XP '''[[Windows XP x64 Edition|Professional x64 Edition]]''' (released on [[March 30]], [[2005]]) for the [[AMD64]] instruction set on processors such as the [[AMD]] [[Athlon 64]], AMD [[Opteron]], and Intel [[EMT64T]]-compatible processors.The discrepancy that caused my edit has been clarified. I didn't know there was a 64 and a x64 editions separately, which is HUGE difference. Seems the article now contains correct information about both 64bit versions currently. I failed to understand your response without clarification by the article because both are named so similar. Thanks --x1987x 00:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

WoW Terminology

Thanks for the revert! I wish people would read the notice at the top and not add general MMO terms! --Nayl 12:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Borat R5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Borat R5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

response to your deletion

I just want to give you a heads up that I have posted a response to your deletion at Talk:Irving_v_Penguin_Books_and_Lipstadt. After a short wait for a response, I intend to revert your deletion. I have posted my reasons on the talk page. Although we seem to disagree, I would like to keep our disagreement civil. If you would like, we can seek dispute resolution. I would appreciate it if you would notify me on my talk page of any action you choose to take. --TachyonJack (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Caterpillar Club

You are in Edit history as an editor on this article. It has been multiply tagged for improvement as an alternative to being recommended for deletion. This is a request for editorial intervention to improve this article. Please help if possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Joe Haldeman

Not sure why you felt the need to revedit the entry concerning Haldeman's war experience, since you only sited my edit history and no actual flaws in the entry. Also not sure why you called it vandalism, hmmmmm? So anyway I have beefed up the refs and returned it. I would suggest If you feel you need to remove someone else's entire edit it would be best to point out where the edit is incorrect or contact the user.

Yours, MayhemMatador````--Mayhemmatador (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemmatador (talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Knife Fight revedits

Dont know why you revedited my sourced and referenced entry and have attempted to label it Vandalism, I have returned it. Interesting fact, my refs are the only ones sourced in the article, but you called it Vandalism. Hmmmm is that a ax I hear grinding?

MayhemMatador ```` --Mayhemmatador (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemmatador (talk • contribs) 05:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bondi Beach revedits

It seems you have tried to remove my sourced entrys from this article as well with no reason, I have returned it. Not sure what game you are playing, dont really care after looking at your "contributions"

MayhemMatador````--Mayhemmatador (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemmatador (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)