User talk:Portia327

Thanks for the advise on the proper way to edit! I am from the old school...

Akpantue (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Portia327, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copyediting. --Docku: What's up? 01:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Corey Taylor has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Corey Taylor. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Fastily (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the above notices (Thanks) - upon closer examination, I have realized your edits are not vandalism and have restored your edits - Fastily (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} How do I block vandalisers?? Portia327 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have to be an admin to do it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Admins can.--Abce2 (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Thanks for insight. How can vandalisers be blocked? Is there some reporting method? You see, I hope, that I'm not 3R-ing for no reason. Portia327 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have Twinkle, it makes it lot easier. Trust me. You can automaticly report them to a special page where admins look over what they have done. To get it, click my preferences and then click gadgets. It should be an option which you can check and then hit the save changes button. Hope this helps, --Abce2 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can if you provide a reasonable edit summary. But if I accidentaly get you blocked, I will worked on blocking myself. But still, you might want to look over the rules a bit. Cheers,--Abce2 (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)![reply]

I looked over the 3R rule and it specifically excludes reverting of vandalism, but thank you for your diligence anyway. I've added the Twinkle and will make liberal use of it. Portia327 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a little gift for the vandal fighting troubles...

		The Original Barnstar
		To a fellow Twinkle wielding vandal fighter! Hazzah! --Abce2 (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that by 'Twinkle', you meant it gave the vandal a slight electrical shock when it was employed; sadly, I don't see that extra shiny red button. Many thanks for the Barnstar and the Hazzah! A little recognition goes a long way avec moi. Portia327 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you have fun vandal-fightin'.--Abce2 (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like to picture them turning into a pile of collegiate dictionaries when I stake them with my Twinkly Barnstar. Portia327 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userboxes. try there. guess that is what u wanted. --Like I Care 03:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfecto, thank you! It's like Wiki Scrapbooking...I'm hooked. Portia327 (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that was quick. --Like I Care 04:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a friendly notice, but when reverting vandalism, it's generally a good idea to warn the vandal on their talk page with one of these templates. You also don't need to go through the effort to undo every edit when some users make many in a row - simply click the timestamp next to the last good version, edit and (without changing anything) save the page, hopefully leaving a nice edit summary. As a vandal fighter I feel compelled to greet anyone I see doing anything that even resembles fighting vandalism; either way, happy editing! —LedgendGamer 05:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my notes here before e continuing on with an edit war. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that you are interested in that article, it certainly looks like it needs some serious attention. I am sorry that I am not sure I understood your question right. But, in my view, the biggest problem with the article is it lacks inline citations making the claims difficult to verify. The External links provided seem to be just some random websites with questionable reliability. I dont see a lack of information on Chidamabram temple on either Google Books or Google Scholar. One could start with backing up all the information with reliable sources and delete anything which can not be. Besides, we could also remove the superfluous Tamil transliterations, which in my opinion adds no encyclopediuc value. These are just general suggestions, will have to read the article in detail for more specific suggestions. --Like I Care 17:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are very welcome. happy editing. --Like I Care 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the shiny star! --Abce2 (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Portia327, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 21:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link was not placed as a source but as an external link, which should not really be placed in the article body. I've added ref tags instead but you'll need to find a secondary reliable source rather than just a link to the website. Rehevkor ✉ 18:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that, I appreciate it. Portia327 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Portia Is this how I talk to you? I have read the guidelines you recommended to me, but I'm afraid I still don't understand what I did wrong! Would you please help me? What I was trying to do was to bring the Bhagavad Gita pages up to date to refer to some helpful literature that Wikipedia readers may want to look at. I noticed that the Translations of the Bhagavad Gita are quite old, and do not include any of the current best-selling translations in the US. For example, the best-selling translation in the US currently is that by Eknath Easwaran, and so I was trying to include a reference to that book. Maybe I did it wrong by inlcuding the Google book search link? Maybe I should do it just with the ISBN? I would also like to add information about the 3 commentaries that Easwaran wrote on the Gita; the first one is already reference on the wikipedia site, but the later 2 have not been added yet. I was trying to do that - and at the same time explain what kind of a commentary they were, to help the wikipedia user... is that "not done" on wikipedia? thanks! DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Portia I think I may have figured our what I did wrong - I included the reference to the translation in a section which actually linked to online translations rather than to books which were translations. So I have now put the reference along with the other book references, in a similar format. I hope this is now OK. Please let me know if I have to do it differently still. Thanks, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you interested in trying to rehabilitate vandals? Please let me know on my talk page if your are. --Abce2|AccessDenied 00:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the outburst. It's just that I got the impression you assumed that if something has a source, it is good enough evidence. But DID you read the source before changing it back? Because I knew it was the exact same source as before; plus it had the same writer, the same director, and the same production code, the latter of which pretty much sealed the deal that it was fake. In fact, that new episode was a complete carbon copy of the "Something Dark Side" episode with a change in title and episode summary which, might I add, was extremely poorly done. This always happens every summer; it just seems that some people can't accept the fact that they have to wait four months for a new episode, so they try to make themselves feel better by making very vague fanfics thrown together at the last minute and summed up in about ten to 150 words; seriously, some of these fake episodes have full-blown plot summaries that give away the endings! Last year it was so bad that there were actually people who believed them to be true! It's just one big travesty. I know Wikipedia isn't a place for outbursts like the one I did, but it certainly shouldn't be a place for vandalism. But it is, unfortunately, and there isn't anything I can really do but complain about it (which I know shouldn't happen here anyway; I just decided to elaborate since you seemed willing to hear me out). However, I do suppose I could tell the administrators about it in an attempt to get the page semi-protected until people get the point, since all the vandals are not registered. Anyway, that's my side of it. I'll try not to let it happen again. Immblueversion (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A task force in WikiProject Michigan has been started about Detroit and its suburbs. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan/Detroit WhisperToMe (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm a freelance writer with Hour Detroit magazine, and I'm working on a piece about Detroit's Wikipedians. Would you be willing to talk with me a bit for my story? You can reach me at [email protected], or let me know what's the best way for me to get a hold of you. Thanks so much! PatrickPDunn (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Portia, from all your friends at the Geeb! (As you can see, it IS possible to edit your talk page without logging in.) 96.231.130.26 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2013 (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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]