User talk:Littlealien182

Littlealien182 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Archives

Archive1 • Archive2

You're right, that edit does seem to make sense. Leaving it out until we find some references seems like the best idea for this situation. Thanks for notifying me. — BassGuitarist182 (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. I'll go ahead and remove it. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 22:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the Coldplay edit without a reference, I am searching for one now. I heard it on a local radio station (WJRR - Orlando). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoity (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why do you keep deleting my changes to the establishment of ucla? i have researched the topic at great length and it seems pretty clear that 1881, is the correct date, given that the state normal school was changed to the southern branch of the UC. please compare this history of Ariz State, SDSU, SJSU, SFSU and chico state, and you will see they are all former normal schools and trace their establishment to the creation of the normal school. same thing should be true with ucla. also, take a look at the history of the outlook, the forerunner of the daily bruin; and the history of the ucla's graduate school of education - both trace their roots to the los angeles state normal school

regards,anderskw Anderskw (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the state normal school was established in 1881, but UCLA, in its present form, was not established as part of the University of California until 1919. This date is the most accurate "establishment date." I'm not denying the fact that UCLA's origins can be traced back to its roots as a normal school, but to say that UCLA existed before 1919 is not only misleading, but also patently incorrect. The origins of UCLA, as a normal school, are still in the text of the article, but the date in the infobox is the year that the normal school became a part of the University of California. This is the date that UCLA recognize and it is also the date that students, alumni, faculty, and staff are familiar with. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1919 is the earliest year that can be placed with the Fiat Lux seal of the University of California for UCLA. A school was established in 1881. The school became a branch of UC Berkeley in 1919. The current name was adopted in 1927. It moved campuses in 1929. This discussion should be carried on at the UCLA talk page. Group29 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I came across your editor review. Do you intend to transclude it to the main page to get some reviews, or can it be deleted? Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was on the main page, but I was having trouble transcluding it so maybe it never made it to the main page. Is there anyway you can help me transclude it? —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the page as usual, and add it to the list, like so: {{User:Littlealien182/ER1}}. The other entries should help. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Early years" is probably a good idea. --icorey (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't really see any reason to remove a summary table. It doesn't take up too much space and is quite handy as a direct reference point for band members rather than having to read through all the text. If you feel it is superfluous however, feel free to remove it, I won't revert. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! You are an excellent editor and are definitely worthy of admin status. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I love the recursiveness :D Gary King (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, 1337. Look it up ;) chamaeleon chamaeleon (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what the purpose of {{Pi Kapp Stats}} is? It seems like it is unnecessary since all it is is the stats that you can just manually put into the infobox. In fact, it makes the infobox more cluttered by putting the template in there instead of the numbers. On top of that, someone who is unfamiliar with templates on Wikipedia will not know what is going on if they go in there to update the data in the infobox. What, do you believe, is the need for this template? Thanks, either way (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an explanation as to why I felt it was necessary to substitute these values with a template on the template's page. But, to put it briefly, I did it because these values are listed multiple times within the article and change rather frequently. The template allows a user to update these statics on one page so that they always remain unified and consistent. Also, I plan on incorporating this template into the List of Pi Kappa Phi chapters, List of Pi Kappa Phi alumni, and other Pi Kappa Phi fraternity related articles (and future articles that I plan on writing). This template will allow all of the figures in these articles to remain consistent and, conveniently, will make it much easier to update them. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User_talk:Pedro#Rollback_question, I've had rollback for several months but I rarely use it - I've used it on less than a handful of days I think. It has the major downside of not allowing customized edit summaries. I've found I use it in two occasions: When a vandal has multiple consecutive edits and it's clear no edit summary is needed, or when a vandal, usually an IP vandal, is reverting my reverts, and I need the speed advantage rollback has. Ironically, I needed to do this last night, which was the first time I'd used rollback in awhile. Personally, I prefer to either use undo or find the last good version and edit-and-save it by hand, with a descriptive edit summary. This also has the advantage of forcing me to be deliberate in my edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm going to have to disagree strongly with this reversion and and the associated {{uw-vand1}} warning you gave to the anonymous editor who made the edit you reverted. Not only is that edit not the kind of vandalism for which one would use Twinkle's "rollback (VANDAL)" button, but seems to be, in fact, a helpful elaboration of the rather vague phrase "popular images of the Southern California lifestyle." The IP editor seems to have immediately re-added what your reversion struck, hopefully blaming technical difficulties and not realizing that his or her contribution had been labeled vandalism and summarily redacted. It would be tragic to scare away a helpful contributor on his or her first edit. I have replaced your warning on the IP's Talk page with a welcome template. If you still think this is a case of vandalism and you're seeing something in this that I'm not, please let me know your reasoning. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 08:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This very same edit has been made to the UCLA page in the past from a different IP (but likely the same editor). You're right in one sense: perhaps my level of warning was too strong. But the edit, in no way, is constructive. Adding "emphasizing freedom in a land of perpetual sunshine" is a great way to make make an already-vague-statement even more vague. It has been reverted in the past and the repetitive nature of this edit is what led me to constitute it as vandalism. Perhaps I was too harsh, but the edit should not remain on the page. The original clause should be removed or followed by a more substantive description. Sorry for the misunderstanding. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 09:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost finished breaking down Category:Lists of chapters or members of United States student societies into the three types of pages listed there, a) Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by college , b) Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society and c) Category:Lists of members of United States student societies .

In the process, I have recatted 98 pages, and the only one left in the original category is the Phi Kappa Alumni sandbox page that you have. I don't alter things in other people's sandboxes, so could you please change the category on your sandbox page to Category:Lists of members of United States student societies so that I can propose the original category for deletion? I've already changed the Phi Kap pages that were in the mainspace. Thank You.Naraht (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if you need anything else. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 01:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope that's what I needed. ThanxNaraht (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay, sure. It's kind of a strange request, but since I'm checking my watchlist every few seconds, I don't mind adding another page to it. Have a nice break! Gary King (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could you visit User:Jac16888/Sandbox#Failed Doppels. This is a list of failed attempts by users to create doppelganger accounts, and at least one of the pages is yours. Creating a doppelganger account involves actually registering the account as you would normally, simply creating a userpage doesn't do it. Please either create the account, or else indicate that you no longer want the page(s) so that I can delete it. Thank you--Jac16888^Talk 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't been on in a long time. School is taking over my life. I think you probably deleted the doppelganger already, which is fine. Thanks for your post. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 05:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yeah I got a bit impatient about it. thanks--Jac16888^Talk 15:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dance Marathon at UCLA. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Marathon at UCLA. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dance Marathon at UCLA. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance Marathon at UCLA. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LadyDanville.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.78.53 (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AlphaOmicronofPiKappaPhi.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AlphaTauRensselaer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 14:33, 22 December 2010 (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) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pi Kappa Phi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GammaPhiUSouthAlabama.sized.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. You can find more about it by reading the article on The Signpost featuring this journal.

We welcome you to have a look the journal. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter. Feel free to participate in the journal.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal. Even a medical student like you can make a submission.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Technical work like template designing for the journal.
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

Diptanshu^Talk 05:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC) -on behalf of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:HAT Selection.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, redundant to File:HAT Selection.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pi Kapp Stats has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]