User talk:MC10/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Talkback on User talk:67.167.122.60#Good Vibrations

Hello, MC10. You have new messages at 67.167.122.60's talk page.
Message added 00:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, MC10. You have new messages at 67.167.122.60's talk page.
Message added 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bypassing redirects

Edits like this aren't particularly useful. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My original intent of that edit was to get rid of the full link [[Wikipedia:IRC channels#Pending requests for access to channels|below]], and since I saw that some of the other links were also redirects, I just changed them as well. I'm sorry if you didn't consider my edit useful, but the main purpose of that edit was to remove the hard-entered link. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you!

MC10 - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you!  7  15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, 7. I have my full trust in you as an admin. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you're not watching it

I've replied at Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've replied there as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. By "where" I meant where on the page I should add the code, but you made me think. I could give you the accouncreator permission fro 5 minutes, you make your edit, then I removed it. They have access to editnotices by a quirk of the right- they can override the title blacklist in order to create similarly-named accounts and I believe the blacklist is the system used for restricting access to editnotices. Strnage really. Anyway, if you want the ACC right for 5 minutes, just say so here and I'll do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Alright, can you temporarily grant the right? I'll ask you to remove it when I'm done. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You have 4 and a half minutes and counting! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There we go, I'm done. Now you can remove my right. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That was probably easier than making the edit myself- I'm useless with templates and can only do {{editprotected}} requests with detailed instructions ;). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's alright. Not everyone knows all that much about the MediaWiki software. Editnotices are an odd addition to Wikipedia. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request for User:Archtransit

{{editprotected|User:Archtransit}}

On User:Archtransit, change:
{{banned|time=indef|by=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Community_ban|the community}}
to:
{{banned user|time=indef|by=the community|link=[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive128#Community ban|AN decision]]}}
to fix the broken link on the userpage. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your global account

I deleted your global account, per your request. I apologize for not doing it earlier, I somehow missed seeing your request on my talk page. Regards, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, J.delanoy. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, MC10. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Greetings MC10 – you recently reverted a series of edits by User talk:190.134.54.84 over at the Uruguay national football team. This editor has since made several edits to the article, but I have no idea as to whether they are constructive or not. Assuming good faith, I is leaving them in there, but maybe you could check it out. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that series of edits because he had removed information from the article that may have been useful. For the new edits, they seem alright; I would give them the benefit of the doubt. If you are still concerned, you can discuss his edits with him. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings again. Thanks for reply. As I have no knowledge of the issue, can only edit out blatant vandalism, so if you is happy to give the B of the D, I is happy to AGF. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Technopat. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For adding the timestamp to my !vote on NativeForeigner's RfA. I hadn't noticed it missing! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, xeno. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Chess

Hey I moved a chess move. It's world's turn. ActivExpression^Sign! 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. I was just wondering why you didn't move in your chess game. I do not wish to move, however. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot

I recommend just updating the tally on the two RfA's' own pages until SoxBot is fixed; that's what I'm doing, because it's easier than constnatly reverting it every half hour. —Soap— 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but it would be nice if SoxBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) was stopped/blocked temporarily and stopped messing around with the RFA tally page. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like X! has fixed it now, so it shouldn't be a problem. —Soap— 23:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I just realized that. Thanks anyways. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

As to the ANI, while I agree some may not wish to, at the same time our templates routines invite them to ... so that's what I was doing. That could always have led to the response you indicate -- but its not clear to me why IP wasn't doing so. Also, while some may not know how to create an SPI, that would presumably (I thought) have led to the request pointing to that as the rationale for the request. But perhaps I presume too much. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course; I was just pointing out that some may not wish to create an account, not that they should not create an account. The IP could have created an account, but if he/she does not wish to, we should not force them to create an account, even if we encourage them to create an account. As the SPI has been created, all the IP has to do is edit that page, so I guess the issue of creating the page is over. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood and agreed. Sounds as though we were in agreement the entire time. And simply expressing ourselves differently.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that as well. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nnnnnnnnnineteen

Re. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nineteen_Nightmares

I think you probably meant to support a block, not a ban - it is an important distinction, see here.

 Chzz  ►  02:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant a block, not a ban. My mistake. I've changed my post. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Radio23

From User talk:Aspland11#Radio23:

Hi, I have recreated the article in my Userspace as per your feedback. I have tried to avoid any words which may be seen as promotional and/or non-neutral. I have also added further references and links. I hope the article is now acceptible to be moved back into articlespace. Finally I would like to point out that I am not Fiedorczuk or QuietCountry25, although these people are known to me. I look forward to your feedback. Aspland11 (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I've moved the page back into your userspace, as you had created the page in Aspland's userspace. It is now at User:Aspland11/Radio23. I don't know how it looked before, but it looks okay; however, the "Philosophy" section still sounds a tad promotional, and you have too many links in the "Programming" and "Events covered and artists recorded or interviewed" sections. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC) And also, feel free to create a userpage here. See WP:USERPAGE for more information about what is acceptable or unacceptable on a userpage. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC) The "philosophy", "programming" and "events covered" sections are blatant resume padding and should be removed. I pruned the puffery, all that's needed now is the addition of reliable independent sources demonstrating notability. At present it is only and A7 speedy, not a G11. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. Re-Philosophy, what would you recommend I cut, my inclination would be that the last sentence could go; would that be adequate? Re-links in Programming/Events covered/Artists interviewed: Not sure what to do there because the station does cover a wide array. The Programming list is similar to that on the WFMU page, only smaller, if I left that but cut down the Artists section would that be okay? Again, thanks for your feedback. Aspland11 (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources. This is about the best I can do. I searched some local Portland newspaper websites without any luck. Has this station had any coverage in the alternative press in Portland? We can't have an article based solely on the website of the station itself. Fences&Windows 18:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, re-lack of references, there were references, in fact the article was much longer and well referenced, but if you look at the article history you will see that User:JzG has done six edits on the article. I was in touch with User:MC10 as per the threads message history on my page, and they were on the verge of accepting the article. As this is a page which JzG has deleted before, I don't know why he has done these edits. I asked you and UserMC10 for your advice. I would prefer if you could help me to create an objective non-promtional article. I trust your ability to be fair and objective in this matter. Please help. Am I allowed to undo Guys edits? I did want to cut some stuff as mentioned in the subjects thread on my talk page message. Aspland11 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Guy can be quite uncompromising in his editing. Blogs can be acceptable as reliable sources if they are part of a news agency or are otherwise known to have editorial oversight, so the Williamette Week blog is fine by me, ditto the Williamette Radio Workshop. Possibly the Northside Festival site and the WK site, but neither are really independent so don't help contribute to notability. Nyctaper looks unreliable, I'd not use that source. DJ Ola's site might be OK as an external link. Brookyln Heights Courier article doesn't mention Radio23. I would avoid adding back the content on philosophy, it waxed lyrical without really conveying any information, and repeating a big list of the types of music played or the artists interviewed really falls foul of the fact that Wikipedia is not indiscriminate or a directory. Fences&Windows 20:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, I can remove the link you said looks unreliable, no problem. Re- the Brooklyn Heights Courier, the article mentions Radio23 in paragraph eight. I believe I cited it for DJ 9-Eleven Thesaurus, a youth-group collective who DJ on Radio23. Philosophy can go if need be. The list of musical styles reflects the content on the WFMU page, which Radio23 is related to and shares an archive with. Does that need to go? User:MC10 suggested I shorten the list of artists features, which I wrote back to them indicating my willingness to do so, but it can go if you think it totally neccessary. I am ready to undertake all changes that you see fit. Let me know what you think. What can I do? If the page meets the criteria and you see it as fit and valid, can it be afforded some sort of protection? Thanks Aspland11 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) What I meant wasn't that you had to remove all of the programming, but that you did not need to link all of them. I also agree that the list is a bit excessive; cut down to the main ones. Since I don not know much about Radio23, I am not of much help, but I hope you can limit the number down to about 5-10. I also agree with Fences and Windows above: Guy (aka JzG) is a bit harsh on his editing. Instead of using all of your links as references, you can add a "External links" section with these links. Right now, the article would not stand for inclusion, as there are almost no sources; however, I do agree that some of your sources were okay. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the message. I noticed that after you wrote you did an edit on the article; would it be okay to stand now as you've edited it? It looks good to me- thanks for the help. If so can I move it back to articlespace or would it be better if you did it to lessen the likelihood of it being deleted again? Aspland11 (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, MC10. You have new messages at Aspland11's talk page.
Message added 12:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, MC10. You have new messages at Aspland11's talk page.
Message added 15:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, MC10. You have new messages at Aspland11's talk page.
Message added 11:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the message. I noticed that after you wrote you did an edit on the article; would it be okay to stand now as you've edited it? It looks good to me- thanks for the help. If so can I move it back to articlespace or would it be better if you did it to lessen the likelihood of it being deleted again? Aspland11 (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think we should move it back to article space yet. Can you find a few more reliable sources (third-party sources from reliable websites) to show that Radio 23 is actually notable? And by the way, I like to keep the talkbacks on my talk page, so you don't need to remove them. Just post underneath them. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a search around for some more sources and leave it in my userspace until I've added them and then get back to you. Aspland11 (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I doubled the references. How is this looking now? Aspland11 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you tomorrow. I'm going inactive for today, as I have other things to do besides editing Wikipedia. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

HI,

I added more references again, I'll leave it to your judgements which ones are worthwhile. Thanks again for all your help, I shall certainly be writing in praise of your efforts on your editor review. Aspland11 (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you aren't supposed to praise me on my editor review, but to actually review me, based on my contributions. But that's a different issue; I'll discuss that on the editor review page.

Half or more of your sources are from blogs. Although blogs are okay as a secondary source, they are not the best sources to use. I removed one site that Google detected as an attack site that downloaded malicious software to a computer. The page looks good enough to move back into mainspace, and so I have done so; it is now at Radio23. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

One thing: can you cite the programming for Radio23? Right now, it is just a long list of programming without any sources. And by the way, you should indent your replies with colons, one more than the previous poster, so now, you should indent with three colons in the beginning of your post: :::. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fences&Windows has basically removed the programming list, cited "Edited laundry list". I'm prepared to leave it like that for now- (I'm rather wary of editing the article). I'll come back and look at it again later. Aspland11 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually like the programming list shorter, as I felt the entire list was a bit too long for the article. And why are you wary of editing the article? Anyone is allowed to edit, so you should not be afraid with editing, as long as you do not disrupt Wikipedia. The main page itself states that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The reason I am wary of editing this article is simply that User:JzG has deleted or attempted to have deleted every article I or any of my housemates have ever started on Wikipedia. I notice from the latest state of the Article that Guy has been on to the article again, adding an "advertising" tag, and stating "this article is weighed down with Peacock terms, and it reads like an advertorial. Events:So what? REMOVE PUFFERY." I have re-removed the advertising tag again- what more can I do? Every attempt I make, and I want a balanced informed article, is thwarted by User:JzG Aspland11 (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I will help you fix this article so it will not be deleted. JzG (a.k.a. "Guy") does have stricter guidelines to what should be in an article, so don't be too obsessive over it. I added a "See also" section, but I do not know what I should add to it, so it would be nice if you could add some links bulleted there. (About your other articles: I do not know what they are, but I am guessing that they were deleted for notability issues; you should read the relevant policy here—the general notability guideline will be pretty useful.) Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks again. I de-orphaned the article as I linked it to some others and I referenced the programming. Re- the See also section, I added a few- was this the sort of thing you had in mind? Aspland11 (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

<-- Yes, that is what I had in mind for the "See also" section. And actually, the article is still an orphan because other articles are still not linking to it—see Wikipedia:Orphan for more information:

“ An orphaned article is an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace. ” — Wikipedia:Glossary#O

Still, the article looks better than before. (And by the way, since I restarted indenting, you can start at using one colon again.) Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I linked three articles to it. I was told before that three are adequate for an article not to be an orphan? Aspland11 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that the other articles had to link to Radio23, not the other way around. I currently only see one article, but correct me if I'm wrong. The "See also" section is just useful for readers to find links to related subjects. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Radio23 links out of List of Internet Radio Stations, WKEntertainment, and Primavera Sound Festival, I'll look for more relavent links too. Aspland11 (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspland, if you're there, could you help me expand Radio23 so it is at 1500 characters? I'm trying to get it to DYK right now. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Looks like you've done some great work on the article. Do you still want me to expand- I can certainly, but I might just be re-introducing elements that have previously been deleted, ie, a shortened version of notable artists that have been interviewed on the station. I can look into this, but it will be on monday- right now I'm just online as I've got to try and stop someone deleting the radio23.jpg image. Aspland11 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now, I just need you to find some sources for my DYK hook: "Did you know ... that Radio23, a radio station based out of Portland, Oregon, provides an international artistic platform for home broadcasters around the world?" Basically, can you find some sources for the part in the article "the station's goal is to provide an international artistic platform for home broadcasters around the world"? That would be very appreciated. Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

<-- Actually, I have successfully nominated Radio23 for DYK. Now, how are you doing with the image? It looks like Fiedorczuk (talk · contribs) is sending an email to OTRS, so if he gets that approved, the image should be fine. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's great, sorry I wasn't really around at the weekend to help out. Re- the image, I am informed that an email from the station has been sent and a reply received stating that the image is safe. Aspland11 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's alright. Now the article should be good to go. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help. Now that the Radio23 page is established do you think it would be possible to look at another page previously deleted by Guy, the Ola's Kool Kitchen page about a show on Radio23 ErrorFM and Radio Indi in Puerto Rico, previously also on Radio Nowhere as well as having links to the War Semen and Grooviness publication. Do you think it would be notable enough to be reinstated?Aspland11 (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Create the page in your userspace (User:Aspland11/Ola's Kool Kitchen), and I'll have a look at it. And you might want to create another section for that article; this Radio23 section is getting a bit long. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a rough draft. That's all the press I could find. When you google it you get loads of bands myspace pages. I've put up an extensive list of bands interviewed and recorded. I was hoping you could help me edit it to keep the most appropriate for the article. Thanks again!Aspland11 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've created a new section below. Please reply there rather than here, as this section is getting pretty long. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Review

Hi, I have reviewed you. Derild4921☼ 13:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. However, personally, I am not very much into content building; I'm too lazy to help do research and write an article about something. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I...

I tried to sepereate the discography to Sinn Sisamouth discography, as it is too long for the article--125.25.236.43 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted myself; however, the page Sinn Sisamouth discography is way too long. Can you cut his discography down to the ones that are most well known? Do all of the songs have to be listed on that page? I originally reverted because another editor reverted a move to the discography page, but I realized that that move was in October 2009. My fault. There was a bit of discussion on the talk page, but that was a year ago and needs further discussion. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will try.--125.25.236.43 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you guess? and Hello

Hello! I'm a 13 years old Cambodian boy and I live in Thailand since last month. Now is 6:29 in Thailand, the same as Cambodia. I want to ask you:

When did I wake up this morning?

if u answered right, I will give you a Cambodian flag award (same as barnstar, but not a star)--125.25.236.43 (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. 5:00 this morning? (You edited at around midnight, if you are in Cambodia, so I'm not sure.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Time in Cambodia and Thailand is the same, but it's UTC+7.00. I'm in Thailand right now.

Answer:6:00. That's the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.236.43 (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I really wake up at 5.49 and I start by turning on computer. Last night I edited at midnight, yes, but I really sleep around 2.30.--125.25.236.43 (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, at least I made a guess. I assumed that you would not turn on the computer the instant you woke up, but it appears I was wrong. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Header

Can you help me on the header of my pages because it is too messy. Thanks! ActivExpression^Sign! 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I am  Doing.... Please don't edit your user page/talk page while I am making your header. Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am  Done. All of the pages should look exactly the same without using the header page. I also fixed your userboxes page, as it did not look well before. If you do not like my changes, feel free to revert. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And FYI, if you need to edit your header (which is located here), use this link: edit ActivExpression's header. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ActivExpression^Sign! 18:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bar of links on the top-right of my user/talk pages/subpages

{{helpme}} There are three links on the top right of each of my user/talk pages/subpages, excluding my archives: "purge server cache | edit count (details) | edit summary usage". They should be properly below the line, as they used to look that way; however, now part of the links is clashing with the ads. If I show preview with User:Js/ajaxPreview's "preview", they look fine, but when I use the normal "Show preview", the problem persists. (Note that I am still using the Monobook skin, but I have turned on "New features".) Can someone knowledgeable enough fix this problem? The links are located at User:MC10/Header, and the code is as following:

Click [show] to view code

<div style="position: absolute; right: 1.15em; top: 3.2em; font-size: 95%;" id="TemplateUserinfo" class="plainlinks">{{purge|purge server cache}} {{!}}<!-- --> [http://toolserver.org/~river/cgi-bin/count_edits?dbname=enwiki_p&user=MC10 <span title="My edit count">edit count</span>] (<!-- -->[http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=MC10&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia <span title="My edits' details">details</span>]) {{!}}<!-- --> [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=MC10&lang=en <span title="My edit summary usage">edit summary usage</span>]</div>

Thank you. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Your question would be much better answered at the Help Desk. Mr. R00t ^Talk 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I will ask my question there. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford flesh-hook

Little Thetford flesh-hook - Thank you for your help on correcting the spelling of Artefact to Artifact. As per WP:ENGVAR, I have reverted the change. See also British English or US English --Senra (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake; I had presumed that artefact was just a misspelling of artifact. I did not consider that it could be a British spelling of the word. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Help Desk Request

I've fixed the page directly. All that is needed is to adjust the "top" parameter on the main div tag to raise and lower the section of links. Hope this helps. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 353° 9' 15" NET 23:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. I've used a template, however, but still, thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17