Thanks for the typo correction; the error was in a quote, and as such shouldn't be changed (maybe [sic]'d though. I'll do that now, actually). Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're right, it's a hoax - there's no such player in the Olympique Lyonnais squad. The IP author has no other edits. Probably intended as a joke-cum-personal attack, which would account for all the IP vandalism. I've tagged it db-g3. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for checking it out. I'm not very familiar with the sport, but the tone and the history of the article made it seem a bit suspicious. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am looking for somebody, who can copyedit the article Vladimir N. Beneshevich. Usually I do not write articles like this. I have decided to translate it from ru-wiki because his life is interesting for me and I think it will interesting for readers from en-wiki.With regards. Ps. you corrected some of my articles. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings. I checked it over today. It didn't really need too much editing, but I did notice there is one external link that has gone "dead". Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I love seeing picky little edits like this, especially on a rather obscure articles. Thanks for taking the time. --KP Botany (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never edited the wording in any of the sections to the Hell's Kitchen (Season 5) page. I only worked on the color scheme for the table. If you look at the previous version before you undid it, It says Luigilos made those changes. Try to be a little more careful with the names you throw out there please Andrew097 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please look again at your edits to Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 5) on 2009-03-12T19:32:22 Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added to the discussion why I added the links that were on there but you removed them as well revert the article to have no useful/accurate information. I had reverted the edit and removed all external linxks except for a link to the original link which was the source of the wiki. Inkpassion

Please sign your posts by using four tildes.

Like this: ~~~~

Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thanks for correcting my typos for Hatta II Cabinet‎ and People's Consultative Assembly‎. I'm working hard to fill in the gaps in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia and I appreciate your efforts that improve the articles. Davidelit (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome; keep up the good work. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks from me too for corrections at African American. Pknkly (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Hi. I am in the process of developing a script to automatically correct common misspellings in articles. The initial goal is for users to have a button at the top of the article which will open an edit window and do a search/replace to correct common misspellings. When the script completes, it then shows the changes and allows the editor to decide if the changes were correct. The goal is to have as few falsely corrected entries, so some of the entries on WP:LCM wouldn't be added. If you are interested in trying it out, let me know. My initial prototype only has entries from the "A" page. There are probably some minor bugs in there as well, but it won't commit any changes without approval. The script is at User:Symplectic Map/spell.js and you just have to include it in your monobook.js file, e.g., User:Symplectic Map/monobook.js. If you are using something other than the standard theme, it would have to be included there instead. It should work on Firefox and Google Chrome. I haven't tested Internet Explorer. If you know of another script for doing this sort of thing, please let me know, so I don't unnecessarily waste any time. Thanks! Symplectic Map (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bill, I love the copyedit you did! Just one question, in the discography section, it looks like you made the title of the first item in the discography italicised. Was that what you meant to do, because it looks out of kilter with the rest of the disco. in normal print? (DOn't worry, I didn't change it! )
_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that was deliberate. The Wiki style is to put names of songs in "quotes" and titles of albums (as well as books, movies, and radio or TV shows) in italics. I started to do that with the list, but then realized I couldn't do it accurately since I wasn't familiar with his material. So hopefully someone better acquainted can pick it up from there. (I also hope that first one is indeed an album title!) Cheers, Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your great spelling corrections. Every little helps. Have you ever tried AWB? --John (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but thanks for the reminder. I finally got around to registering for AWB yesterday and I've downloaded it, so I'll give it a try soon. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a complaint, so don't be annoyed. But your change of "miniscule" to "minuscule" in Organisms in A Series of Unfortunate Events was unnecessary, since both are correct spellings (as can be seen here). — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand (since this is a Wiki project), see also miniscule. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "minuscule" is far better. --John (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bill, why you write in Kia Rio page, that hatchback have new lenght for models 2009? I cannot find source for this information. I find article http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2009-03-19-test-drive-kia-rio-review_N.htm , but i think author is wroong, because sedan lenght have -1 inch. (sorry for my english. russian kia rio fan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.85.90 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I believe the edit you are referring to was actually made by "Bull-Doser" on February 7, 2009. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your response. Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.85.90 (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mild Bill Hiccup! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as needing either a little attention to style, updating, copypasting, or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see Talk:Saint Mary's Convent School, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Talk:Hedo_Türkoğlu#Current_dispute. Thanks. Mfield (Oi!) 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; maybe now some of these gun-jumpers will wait a few more days until things are official. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pentalogy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template ((hangon)) underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you leave me the fuck alone asap or I'll report your ass for harassment. 141.152.28.4 (talk)

Please sign your messages. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this qualify as a Freudian slip? ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure, but it certainly occurs more often than I would have thought. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for fixing the table on the BMW article that I was editing, I didn't know how to fix it, so I thought better to remove it than keep it.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still not sure exactly what the cause of that was. There seems to be an interaction of some sort between tables and certain templates. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen your edits on the Australian rock page and do not feel that information on hip hop/rap music and electronic music should be in this article because the rock music, electronic and rap are all different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_rock

Maybe it should be in timeline of trends in Australian music or Music of Australia. Please write back.114.73.43.232 (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you might be confusing me with another contributor. My one edit to this article consisted of some minor changes in spelling and formatting (with a net difference of only +27 bytes). Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just thought, what if you went back to [[this[1] version of the article and started again. That version was pretty good, you know. 114.73.43.232 (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Mild Bill Hiccup for his most valuable Gnomish edits. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you related to user Badbilltucker? Simply south (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, no. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to mean "pick up", I write very fast.--Raniero Supremo (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still got problems with Portland and Utah.-DANO- (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just now tried to edit it again and I noticed the page belongs to a special hidden category – "Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded". I think the problem is with Wikipedia:Template limits, but I'm not sure where to go from here. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mild Bill Hiccup! A biography which you have either created, contributed to, or edited, is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I'm totally unfamiliar with the subject so I can't help with this one. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was this just a massive error? Your edit summary claimed you were undoing the last edit (which doesn't make sense to begin with, because the last five edits were just adding and tweaking a single entry) but what you actually did was remove half the content, from different sections of the page, with no apparent rationale. I assume it wasn't your intention to hack out half the page while hiding it behind a false edit summary? Propaniac (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I recall, I originally hit undo just to remove the "grunge" entry. Then I noticed the hidden comment at the top about people making up various groups of four things that don't link to any specific article and deleted those as well, but neglected to correct the edit summary.Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There doesn't need to be an actual article called Big Four (X), just an article that says "these things are called the big four." For example, thrash metal says such-and-such bands are considered the Big Four of thrash metal. I went through every single entry when I cleaned up the page a couple months ago, so unless the linked article has been edited since then to remove the "Big Four" reference, I think all the entries are good. Propaniac (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be really helpful if you would rewrite this is prose format. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for getting involved in the editorial work for Jay Pritzker Pavilion. The article is currently at WP:PR. Feel free to come by and make comments on the concerns there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

....for your help with the article caveman. Chrisrus (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for reverting some of this IP user's recent vandal edits. what is the procedure I can follow to seek an IP block? this IP is consistently messing with census numbers and such in articles, which is very annoying.--Neighborhoodpalmreader (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think administrators are supposed to impose a block after a certain number of vandalism edits, but for some reason it doesn't always happen. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

…and this one. Perhaps they will have taught me to spell the word diminutive. Thanks! Ian Spackman (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easiest thing to do in those situations is to go back to the last named account, especially if the named account's edit is a vandalism reversion. That way you're not constantly tidying up. You might accidentally revert a couple of legit edits, but more likely than not, you'll lose nothing of value. HalfShadow 22:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I notice that you've recently done some copy editing and typo fixing on the Younger Than Yesterday article. Thank you for cleaning up some of my silly mistakes. All good writers need a good editor, right? :-) Anyway, I appreciate your help and would like to ask you to have a look at The Notorious Byrd Brothers article as well. I'm tentatively preparing this article for WP:GAN but I'm sure that it needs a good going through like Younger Than Yesterday did.

That sounds good. I'll look at it this weekend.Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I have your attention, I also have a couple of general copy editing questions. In the first sentence of the YTY article, is there any reason to have the word "see" in the parenthesis italicised? Another copy editing Wikipedian formatted it like this and I've tended to follow suit on other articles but I don't really understand why this word needs to be italicised.

I don't understand it either; it seems to make that one word stand out for no particular reason. Looking through some articles dealing with albums by other artists (David Crosby's solo albums, for instance), it appears more common to leave off the italics or to simply eliminate the parenthesized phrase by linking the year of release to the corresponding "year in music" article; something such as "was released in February 1967".Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Thanks for taking a first look at this article - it's very helpful of you. I assume that you’re going to take a look at the “Release” and “Legacy” sections at a later time? Since leaving my above message I've learned from the copy editing Wikipedian in question that the italicizing of "see" or "see also" comes from a particular style book and there's also examples of it here, here, here and here. Oh, and just so you know, I’ve reinstated the parenthesized 1968 in music because that's the correct way to format such links in music articles - piped links are discouraged under the music article style guidelines - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/MUSTARD#Internal_links. Thanks again for your help. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the additional info and the pointer to the guidelines; I'll have to look through those to see :-) if I missed anything else. But overall I think this article looks pretty good so far. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My second question again relates to the first sentence of the article: should "The Byrds" have a comma before and after it, like - "Younger Than Yesterday is the fourth album by the American rock band, The Byrds, and was released in February 1967 on Columbia Records." Or is it fine as it is? Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The comma before the name shouldn't be used because it would separate the name from the words being used to describe it and would make it sound like The Byrds were the only American rock band. The comma after the name is probably more a matter of style, similar to the serial comma debate.Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many "last warnings" do you think they should receive? Two seems so... inadequate. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I have seen cases where there were a lot more than two "last warnings", since the warning templates max out at level four. After that, I suppose it becomes a matter of how many more edits the vandal is willing and able to make before the final "final warner" is an administrator. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Mild Bill Hiccup. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Trip on the Road, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a test page. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what passes for your definition of vandalism. The changes I made to Greek and Latin roots in English article were simply for easier reading. No information was changed. At one time, there was a description on the page that said all the Greek roots were in a blue, the Latin ones were normal background color. Not sure why this was ever done. The page itself has a column listing either Greek or Latin, so there is no reason for some background color to identify the root language. Besides that, the blue is more distracting than pleasing, and is out of the ordinary compared to other Wikipedia glossaries that I have seen.

Over two years ago, I made a number of additions from A to C in this article, and was going to try and complete much of the missing information. I never really had time to get back to it. The article is largely completed now, but the blue background that remains is really a relic of the article when it was still being developed. For that reason there is no reason to keep it, and notice the article now does not even state why the Greek roots are all in blue. The blue to me is a rather un-necessary attempt to jazz up the visual appearance. I like color, but I think it is not needed in this type of article. WordsExpert (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. You may want to add this information to the article's talk page as well. I'm not sure what happened to that text that someone had put in there explaining the meaning of the blue background; it was part of the intro section at one time, but I notice it's now gone along with most of the intro.Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mild Bill, thank you for the reversion. WordsExpert (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Principal and principle[edit]

In your recent edits to various articles (Nesanel Quinn, Jan Wyck, Shmuel Rozovsky, Department of Computer Systems and Networking, SLIIT) you confused "principle" and "principal". "Principal" is the leader of a school, while "principle" means the main. Therefore, one can correctly be called a "principle student" of another if he is that other's main student, but it is grammatically incorrect to call someone a "principal student" which simply doesn't make any sense. Please fix your recent edits to reflect the proper usage of these two commonly confused words. Thank you. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 07:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have it backwards. The word "principal" can be a noun or an adjective. The word "principle" is a noun with a different meaning. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, you're right. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not revert the football (soccer) to football or association football. It was already discussed and agreed on. If you fell it should be redebated, please open a discussion for it

You have it backwards. Association football is the title of the actual article on the English Wikipedia. Soccer and Football (soccer) are just redirects, not real articles. Try clicking on these links and you'll see what I mean. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But football (soccer) is the agreed term for AUSTRALIAN articles. Association football was not agreed on when this was discussed, it's it why we used the redirection football (soccer). I also noticed that some of the pages that simply use FOOTBALL (another redirection) you didn't change to association football, but reverted simply to football which was not agreed on

Thanks for the grammar edits made to Kelly Rowland (album). However in this revision you incorrectly tagged a sentence in the lead section (first paragraph, list sentence) with the ((fact)) tag. This is incorrect. The material is sourced later on in the "Themes and Concept" section as demonstrated here. It would be appreciated in the future if you could be more careful in reading ALL of the information in an article before tagging things in the lead as unsourced. Per WP:lead section things which are already sourced do not require referencing in the lead section.

Regards, --Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latest version of WP:LEADCITE states "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads". I think what that is saying is that it shouldn't be necessary to read the entire article. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its funny how you missed out "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source" Since the statement is sourced immediately later on I dont see the need for it to be sourced in the lead per the requirement above. Now if it was unsourced anywhere in the article or if there are statements which do not appear elsewhere in the article then yes I wouldn't have an issue with your edit. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding this: It's actually not a misspelling. It's a pun. It's titled ...And the Women Who Love Them: Special Addition because it adds numerous bonus tracks to the original EP. See here for confirmation (check the wording on the cover art). --IllaZilla (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops. Thanks for the quick correction. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I updated this as you requested. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for adding the ((copypaste)) template on that article. I have removed the copyrighted text and the notice appropriately on that page. Minimac (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your consistent work with copyediting, have another copyeditor's barnstar.I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a ((Talkback)) message on my talk page. @ 08:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just a heads up, please do not fix redirects that are not broken. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ta for that - what do you think about trying to tweak scope of the Books project to include antiquarian book sellers, book shops, and book selling, book collecting and things of the same ilk? The book project talk page is more spookily silent than an edgar allan poe story - any thoughts would be appreciated - cheers SatuSuro 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'll check it out. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was hoping to recruit you into helping me permanently delete that Canada blurb on Lifeguard. It is pretty ordinary stuff that nearly every first world country is doing. Not really that interesting IMO. (I guess I will find out if the "M" ever gets reverted wrong way up in "Mild!" :) Student7 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree it doesn't do much, given that the section already links to a full article on the subject. But I have a feeling that if I remove it someone (or some bot) will revert it. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Water key (civil engineering) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has no incoming links, so a ((wi)) is pointless.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((dated prod)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wizard191 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good; that article looks rather worthless. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to hear you agree. Wizard191 (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your user name just prompted the creation of a new article. My 16 yr old son didn't get the joke at all, so I looked up Wild Bill Hickok and was prompted by a tag decrying the addition of bulleted lists to a main page, to create the article List of cultural depictions of Wild Bill Hickok. Thanks for your work! Amandajm (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to be of service :-) Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edit on German Dance actually was incorrect. The spelling "it's" is correct because that sentence shows possession. Herr Beethoven (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The possessive form of "it" is "its". The contraction "it's" means "it is" or "it has". Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concede, but still disagree. It makes no sense to me to have just these few exceptions to the general rule. Herr Beethoven (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Hiccup, Can you help me clean up the grammar, syntax and spelling of C-AKv? I made a start, but a lot needs to be done yet. What there is now is a "dogs breakfast". Peter Horn User talk 00:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I gave it a look and made a few changes. I hope that what I came up with is an improvement. I also moved it to C-AKv coupler, which I felt was a more specific name and one which was in line with other similar railway articles. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for catching a few lulus that I missed (did not notice). The whole looks 100% better. Peter Horn User talk 00:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Wiki Lei Barnstar
		Thank you for cleaning up spelling and tidying Archaeology in Samoa. Much appreciated! teinesaVaii (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy new year Paula William (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may be a good idea to leave more informative edit summaries. Presumably you're adding tags to an article so that it can be improved, and not with the goal that they remain there forever, and a less-than-revealing edit summary is less likely to get them noticed and lead to improvement. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. You can also add articles to a watch list, which will show you when an article has been changed. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well yeah, my point was precisely that people with too many pages on their watchlist are likely to not pay much attention to entries on their watchlist that are marked "(m) spelling". Anyway, it doesn't matter now. :-) Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your helpful edits to the new article I created, at T. Arthur Cottam. Much appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome; keep up the good work. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing up my spelling and grammar in the Vostok programme article; and adding ((update after)) - I didn't even know that template existed! :) Mlm42 (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. I came across that template by accident myself, but have found it quite handy in preventing information about future events from becoming outdated. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, MBH. Please see Talk:List_of_English_prepositions#Prefix a(-) for the reasoning behind my removal of "a" from this list. -- Picapica (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. To keep things aligned, you might want to remove this "a" as well. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, I'd already looked at that. Given its emphasis upon the archaic nature of this "preposition" it may well be relatively harmless, but I'll certainly take another look. Thanks for your understanding. -- Picapica (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps it should be moved to the section on archaic prepositions? Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bill.
Just wondering why you reverted the external map links user Mizzou scarab placed on Lancaster, Missouri, Lawson, Missouri and others. I think this is some sort of quasi-official type project, maybe in the Library Sciences program, at Mizzou. Another party (username kelli.hansen) has been adding them to some of the other northern Missouri town & county Wikis I monitor for vandalism. Is the link against some Wiki policy I'm not aware of? Sector001 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)20:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can see, these links all go to the same generic page, which doesn't provide any additional information on the articles in question. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They provide maps of the communities from the 1880s and onward. Certainly seems worthy to me. Just sayin' Sector001 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to provide some clarification: (username Sector001) is correct. I and (username mizzou.scarab) have been adding links to the pages as a semi-official project meant to increase access to the maps, which are quite valuable as historical documents. The Sanborn collection at the University of Missouri is the most complete in the state, plus many of the maps have been digitized and are freely available online in the University of Missouri Digital Library. We believe that these maps provide a resource that would be useful and interesting to most people who come to Wikipedia seeking information about Missouri cities.

Our rationale for linking to the general Sanborn Maps collection page rather than the digital library is twofold: 1) because maps in the collection produced after 1923 were not digitized, and therefore the general collection page contains information not included in the digital library, and 2) because there is currently no way to link to individual cities in the collection page. However, if you scroll down on this page, on the right-hand side you will notice a box that says "Inventory" with links to "Missouri Cities A-D", etc. Clicking through those links provides information on the exact holdings for individual cities (but it doesn't provide information on what Sanborn Maps are and how to use them - another reason for linking to the general collection page first).

Hopefully this additional information helps to shed more light on what we are doing. I'm sure that making library resources easier for people to find - especially freely available online resources - would be a goal most Wikipedia authors and editors share. Thanks for your vigilance and work on the articles, and don't hesitate to contact me with further questions or suggestions. All the best, Kelli.hansen (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Kelli for the explanation. In light of it Bill, I'm going to revert those deletions of the map links (the ones I can find, anyhow). Sector001 (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to you both! If either of you have suggestions for alternate ways to do the linking, just let me know! Best, Kelli.hansen (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Hills Have Eyes 2 characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. You are receiving this message due to perceived interest in the article (having made multiple edits). Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In re IP 70.162.155.41: All IPs for most schools in the Valley even will show up through Cox, especially if they're small schools. Seton Catholic Preparatory High School's known major IP is listed under Cox (it's 98.191.99.249) – as a student there, the edit history correlates properly with likely items from the school.

I'd assign it to PCDS given the history of edits to that article in particular, not to Cox. Larger districts, e.g. Gilbert Public Schools, do have their own server systems. 70.162.x.x addresses do tend to be Cox Phoenix though – for a time, even my IP was that (see when I forgot to log in and still edited: Special:Contributions/70.176.127.235. Raymie (t • c) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bill,

First off - thanks for correcting the spelling mistakes.

Second - do you think it would be okay to cite Glen Cavaliero in The Supernatural and English Fiction for the use of "supernaturalist". It is a term he uses in the book, the thinking being (I assume) that "supernatural fiction" is a popularly-used term, but technically incorrect because it suggests that the fiction itself is supernatural. Cavaliero offers the term "supernaturalist" in the same way one would use the term "realist" to describe fiction which was realistic, but not actually real (ie factual.) I don't think we need to use the ugly term "supernaturalistic"! Trudytrudy (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not real familiar with it, but since he uses the term (the non-ugly one) himself, I think it would be fine to cite it. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Bill! Trudytrudy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hello Mild Bill Hiccup. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hindhuism sacred promise, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, never mind then; for some reason it has now disappeared. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for the help with the editing! I'm new and learning everyday by kind people like yourself. Please review the Wiki page I'm working on and let me know your thoughts and opinions as being a new user, I do welcome the criticism!  :)

Thanks Bill.

Regards, Patrick

68.174.228.55 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Is Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal the article you refer to? Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is this about?

"In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation."

What vandalism? The only thing I had done immediately previously to this, was oppose an AfD that User:Will_Beback supports. He then canvassed you to retaliate on his behalf, and engaged in projection, by ordering me not to engage in canvassing! 74.72.23.106 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The wording is standard boilerplate, put there by the template. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I saw your copyedit on the above list. Thanks for your interest. If you have time, perhaps you'd like to remove its "new, unreviewed article" tag—provided you're comfortable that it meets Wikipedia's policies of course. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I meant to do that yesterday and forgot about it before I logged off, but now it looks like someone else beat me to it, so all's well that ends well. Anyway, it looks like the article is off to a good start. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please visit this link [2] as your opinion and expertise would be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 21:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is it that you think needs clarifying? The statement "ladder topology is much more popular" is a very straightforward claim. SpinningSpark 10:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right; apparently I misread the start of the first sentence as "ladder" instead of "lattice", so it seemed like a contradiction between "not very common" and "is much more popular". I have removed the template. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for catching my errors I love your username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cris57helpme (talk • contribs) 05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have repeatedly warned Victar not to include data from personal research and making additions that are not verifiable. You have assisted him in violation of Wikipedia policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

It is now on you to go through with a fine toothed comb and remove all content that lacks verifiability and/or is personal research rather than a peer reviewed paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 05:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have repeatedly warned Victar not to include data from personal research and making additions that are not varifiable. You have assisted him in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Another day, another kook. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA):

1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
3. Categories representing overcategorization

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one who took this off the edit hold did so without reading the talk page.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I refer to the article for J1c3d Y-DNA haplogroup as is indicated in the very first section of my User talk page.
Please see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_J1c3d_(Y-DNA)
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1c3d_(Y-DNA)
  

Please show a reference to J1c3d or L147.1 in:

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/pdf/ejhg2009166a.pdf This is about the parent clade, J1c3, J-P58, or the old J1e.
   
2. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1668/2703.full.pdf This does not even mention J1 and may be a reference to J2, given its own article references.
   
3. http://books.google.com/books?id=-AQNAQAAMAAJ, Needs a quote about J1c3d, or L147.1 to even claim it was read.
   
4. http://wysinger.homestead.com/afroasiatic_-_keita.pdf This is an article about Haplogroup E1b1b
   

There are no sources for this subclade of this haplogroup. QED, it should be deleted.
It even has problems with spelling.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So how do you think my Dad's page should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cris57helpme (talk • contribs) 09:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it would help if you would make sure that you aren't reintroducing errors that have already been corrected. Also, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for some suggestions about sources. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello MBH, can you look at my recent two edits on the above article and tell me whether they are correct or appropriate? I see you removed a similar section from talk but my reason for restoring this on the page was that an IP has been blanking it without true explanation. I've added what I think is a helpful source but if the passage needs removal, I rather this were approved by you than have IPs take liberties. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks fine to me. I think perhaps the anon editor blanked it out under the opinion that it didn't fit with the theme of "disputed usage". I thought the original text provided enough evidence otherwise, which is why I restored it the first time, but I didn't want to get into an "edit war". Thanks for providing an additional source. (The stuff added to the talk page was just temporary; I have since moved "while/whilst" to the article on American and British English spelling differences as well.) Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clearing that. I believe we now have some minor consensus in the event that someone tries to blank it again. With the source, it should trigger a tag for Recent Changes onlookers to notice if done by an IP. Appreciate your help. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. What made you issue this warning just now? As far as I can see Kaupeens hasn't edited that article since 10 June and hasn't edited at all since, in response to my 15 June warning, he promised he wouldn't spam any more. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. Just wanted to say thanks for fixing my grammatical errors! Vlasktom (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the fix. Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pitching in to help with than anon-IP vandal. And may I say, it's always good to see a Wikipedia contributor with many more thousand edits than even me (at about 55,000)! That's true dedication to this worthy, voluntary cause. You're far more than a Yeoman Editor — you're a Senior Editor, I believe. Don't be modest — put that medal up there! With regards, -Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on John Appleby (author) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on John Appleby (author) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status and Advice[edit]

It's OK.

As reviewing administrator, I found it was easy to determine he meets WP:AUTHOR because of the film. Ialso added the rest of his books, from Worldcat. BTW, that article on the film is pretty skimpy, and it might help to add some of the other information in imdb. I've explained things to the over-eager new page patroller. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I had done some searches for the author, but couldn't come up with much beyond IMDb. Thanks for the pointer to Worldcat; that's a resource I wasn't aware of. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Wild bill I was wondering if you can help with some other pages I have interest in like 1.Johnny Paycheck,2.Gilley's,and 3. Mickey Gilley,4.The urban Cowboy,5.The mechanical Bull because they are all pages that need lots of corrections. Take care xoxo Miss Crystal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cris57helpme (talk • contribs) 06:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you reverted some of Jpr127's edits in which he added links to webpages at the Autry National Center.[3][4][5][6] His edits caught me eye too, but on review I thought they looked like worthwhile additions. The links are relevant to the subjects (they go to pages on firearms owned by the subjects which are now in a museum). The webpages are high quality sources, and are not commercial or promotional. I think they are probably suitable. Any object to me restoring them?   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your valuable contribution to article Velankanni Town. Please keep checking the spelling and grammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownyCat (talk • contribs) 05:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for copy editing Aaiha Bill. It is an extremely important page so thanks for helping to get it right. smiles. Px Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 05:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that looks quite tasty indeed. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THanks so much to have corrected the spelling of principle from principal on Garbo page! Great copy edit of my astonishing error!--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Sherwood Cryer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Wedlock

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you delete what I wrote yesterday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa Bakacak (talk • contribs) 10:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps your question could be a little more vague. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You edited the GNU Octave page and removed a link to a web interface that I added. To help me understand the rationale, could you tell me why you did not apply the same principle and removed the other items on the same list, specifically, the link to Online LaTeX and Octave Editor, Online access to Octave and MathCloud? In case it was due to language that was not neutral, I've added the link again using the same neutral language as described the other items on the same list. In particular, I was surprised that all 3 of the other sites had advertisements on their pages. If you decided to keep those 3 sites which have advertisements, then, I hope you would consider that it is in the public interest to know that an alternative exists without any advertisements. Thanks. Slowtortoise4 (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that all these options are equally valid and potentially useful to the public - and should have the same principle applied to all items. Thanks.

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your amazing fixing of misused and mispelled words on wikipedia. Thank you and happy editing! pluma Ø 04:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

your mopping up after me at Pioneer Woman (Friedlander). My understanding of English grammar (since it is my only language) is better than you might suspect from what you saw there. It probably was a late night edit. Or early morning. Or somewhere in-between. Anyway, thank you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had a message saying I had "vandalized," Greg Oden's page by including a sentence referring to his nickname, "Mr. Glass." This is a widespread nickname used to refer to his history of injuries.

From the Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/521057-nba-breaking-news-mr-glass-portlands-greg-odens-knee-betrays-himagain

Here's a clip from an ESPN show where an analyst calls him "Mr. Glass." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzDOXzle50k

Here's an article from Knee Jerk NBA: http://kneejerknba.blogspot.com/2009/12/when-greg-oden-went-down.html

So color me a bit confused when you threaten to ban me for something like that. It's a widespread nickname given to him by numerous NBA & ESPN analyst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.110.253 (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is really no "me" involved, since the posting was done through a shared college IP address. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your review of Word by frequency lists. I'm not a native English speaker. This help is appreciate. Yug (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horror films of Cambodia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. And please feel free to share your views at the discussion. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noetic positivism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mcewan (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Mild Bill Hiccup. You recently placed a ((cn)) tag after the phrase "It is important to note" on the page Linguistic insecurity. I've replaced that with ((Weasel-inline)), reasoning that it is the hedging rather than a factual claim that is disputed. If I was incorrect, please revert me, and maybe leave a note on the talk page about the factual dispute. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; the tag you substituted is indeed more appropriate to the phrase in question. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bill. When you submitted this move request, it ended up in a subsection of the archives, where it would have languished indefinitely, had I not seen it in my watch list. The correct place is right under the "Technical requests" header, but I grant you that this newly added, embedded archive tends to obscure the structure of the page. Anyways, the article has been moved as you proposed. Favonian (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this edit: I undid it. I know you had the best of intentions, but it's common in writing about the U.S. Supreme Court to capitalize "Court" on subsequent references so as to distinguish it from other courts one may be writing about in the same piece. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for all the spelling corrections! --<<Technology and emergency services guru dedicated to expanding Wikipedia's offering of information that may hopefully save lives!>> (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why you left "((update after|2011|10|29))" on the Field hockey at the 2011 Pan American Games page when you could have edited it yourself. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't follow field hockey closely enough to keep track of which events actually did or didn't take place. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You left the tag there for a reason, so you knew what was wrong with the article. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion here, just figured you may want to know, seeing as you're one of about five people who edited the article. 2birds1stone (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete sounds like a good idea. I notice the French version seems to have more information (but I'm not sure what information, since I can't read French), but it also has many red links and no references. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the multiple spelling assists at Natural genetic engineering, particularly the capitalization issues. Best, GaramondLethe 07:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]