User talk:Rahzel

Thanks for the spam clean-up on the "external links" section of Dance Dance Revolution. Kimchi.sg 16:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've started the process of listing Golf etiquette for deletion. Keep in mind that it's a three stage process; you appear to only have done the first step. Here is information about how to complete the process. --Sneftel 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up on my rather odd edit to the Golf article - not sure what happened there, only half of what I typed appeared. I've had another go at the edit I wanted. Check it out and if you are still unhappy we can discuss it on the talk page?

--Charlesknight 14:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you felt it was necessary to remove my edit which added the definition of a condor. This is a legitimate scoring term, and there is a documented example of it having been scored.

--Mat macwilliam 19:53, 18 April 2007 (BST)

The sentence I added to the beginning of the In The Groove (game) article relating to the acquisition by Komani is accurate, and does not imply anything relating to the future of the series. The sentence does not break the rule of Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not (Crystal Ball)--jonphamta 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I like it when editors appreciate the fact that it's a group effort. BabuBhatt 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! Thanks for taking the time and effort to do it. --HailFire 09:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend this tidied up version for your spoken word reproduction of the article, if you are preparing it soon. Otherwise, please drop me a line when you are ready, and I can do another quick editorial run through to shake loose anything flakey. Thanks again for your efforts on this. --HailFire 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've some edits planned for this weekend, especially the lede section that could use more summary information. --HailFire 08:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was delighted to get your help here, thanks. ~~

No harm done. :) -- Oh, btw, you may be interested in the "juggling stub" proposal I made at WikiProject stub sorting. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of any juggling related stubs, you can now tag them as {{juggling-stub}}. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit to Triathlon using an automated script- you shouldn't rollback legitimate and well-intended edits via a script that does not provide a good reason. Anyway, I believe the caption is necessary and follows the guideline WP:CAPTION. Thanks. --Wafulz 04:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

216.119.8.2 just vandalized the Fred Rogers page after his 2nd final warning. He should be banned. User5802 08:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

; ) User5802 18:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yourself say that many people come for "human sexual intercourse", meaning you know the meaning properly. Still, instead of trimming animal part you removed it, which is against consensus in talk page. You were aware of earlier discussion, i doubt others knew, but you did not inform it to others. Please leave you comment in talk page. If many people come for human intercourse then change title of article, it is encyclopedia, cant be changed for what people look for. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, at least you asked to look at talk page in edit summary while reverting. The other user just counted 3RR and reverted. I had thought i would rm hatnote by counting 3RR :( Regards. Lara_bran 05:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those who add data/detail should give source. Tell me what is that pipe connecting nipples and uterus? Support your detail with a reliable source. Thanks. Lara_bran 14:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the changes I'd made to "Golf" and "Golf Clubs"? I did not advertise, nor express undue opinion, and in many cases I feel I added needed information. It seems to be standard procedure for moderators to simply completely revert a series of changes rather than selectively re-edit, and in the process everything the contributor did, good and bad, is lost. I do appreciate that you saw my efforts as in "good faith"; that hasn't always been the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liko81 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rahzel
I noticed you have an interest in improving golf related articles. I thought that maybe you would like to join WikiProject Golf, where you can collaborate with editors etc. Recently I have contacted all the participants and stated that it would be good to have a goal to work towards, for example creating a certain number of good articles in a set amount of time, or creating a featured article. If you are interested put your name down in the members section and have your say about a goal that you think would be feasible on the talk page. Hope to see you around Wikipedia! Thanks! Grover 10:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it usually considered 'bad form' to clear down talk pages? I have a few others I'd attack (eg Lift(force)) ahead to this one :-) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just want to thank you for explaining what I needed to say to properly contribute to Why Wikipedia is not so great. --Jnelson09 (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. There's a better, more organized system on the Homestar Runner Wiki. --Jnelson09 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the AfD, I'm the idiot who fell for the hoax and tried to improve the article; I tracked the internal wiki links but not the external ones. You were right, I was wrong, and all I can do is apologize. <sigh> And I was happy that I thought I'd actually rescued something worthwhile!! Sorry for your extra trouble. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please, no apology necessary -- revert all my edits however you like. <slaps forehead in frustration> The little !(*$@!!@#$& fooled me completely. I feel like such an idiot!! If I hadn't had so much to do with the article, I'd close out the AfD myself and delete the article, but I don't think that's a wise idea seeing as how my name is all over it -- and my judgment is obviously bad <grrrr>. I'll ask a friend to take care of it quickly, just so the hoaxer doesn't get a moment more borrowed time than is possible. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]