| Revision as of 04:15, 8 May 2010 view sourceAmaury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers98,545 editsm →Re: Hi.: Formatting.← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:21, 8 May 2010 view source 205.250.62.60 (talk) →Vandalism: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
| ===Re: Hi.=== | ===Re: Hi.=== | ||
| I added that discussion at ], just to let you know. Feel free to voice your opinions there if you want, or on my talk page. ]] 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | I added that discussion at ], just to let you know. Feel free to voice your opinions there if you want, or on my talk page. ]] 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Vandalism == | |||
| Sorry, but the uniform info changes I made to the LFA page was correct and in no way considered to be vandalism because I am a student currently attending, and had no reason to place misinformation on that page. | |||
Revision as of 04:21, 8 May 2010
Amaury is
Somewhere
 | It is approximately 12:40 PM where this user lives. |
| vn-166 | This user talk page has been vandalized 166 times. |
I screwed up, just to say hello, or anything else! I won't bite! I have a few requests that I hope you'll respect while posting here:
|
For 2009 discussions, please visit the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Donald_Duck/2009
January 2010
Discussions archived
An archive of January 2010 discussions can be found here.
February 2010
Discussions archived
An archive of February 2010 discussions can be found here.
March 2010
Discussions archived
An archive of March 2010 discussions can be found here.
April 2010
Discussions archived
An archive of April 2010 discussions can be found here.
May 2010
Revert
Ah, you were quick on the draw and beat me to the revert. Useight (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I sure was. Heh. - Donald Duck (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Careful please
This is not vandalism. Tip: If a user ever leaves a constructive edit summary, click space. When one user on Huggle makes a mistake like this it may be misleading to other users. Thank you. Tommy2010 00:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Revert on The Candidate (Lost)
Hi, I believe that you made a mistake with reverting in the article The Candidate (Lost) with this edit. Plot information was added to the article and was not in error. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. I was trying to revert some other vandalism, and somehow that happened. - Donald Duck (talk) 02:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- It happens. Nice layout for your talkpage by the way, I like it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Revert on United States Senate election in Utah, 2010
You reverted changes made on this article, even though there an edit summary citing a disagreement over article organization. I've asked for a discussion on the article organzation from the editors involved (myself and JerzeyKydd) and reverted your changes. Please let me know what was done incorrectly. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I reverted my edit to your talk page. However, I reverted your edit to the article again. I left an explanation in the edit summary. - Donald Duck (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Leaving the article alone doesn't resolve the dispute. The original article is my organization. JerzeyKydd should leave it alone, not me. He should explain what he thinks should be done to improve the article. At this point, the dispute is my organization -- it should be left alone. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, you've got a conflict of interest. I just posted a message regarding that on your talk page. - Donald Duck (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm referring to the way the article is organized. Not an actual ORGANIZATION. JerzeyKydd reorganized the article. I posted on the talk page that I was reverting the reorganization and that he could discuss the changes he thought that need to be made. The ORIGINAL ARTICLE ORGANIZATION should be preserved, not the ones made my JerzeyKydd. Not sure where the conflict of interest is. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, you've got a conflict of interest. I just posted a message regarding that on your talk page. - Donald Duck (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Leaving the article alone doesn't resolve the dispute. The original article is my organization. JerzeyKydd should leave it alone, not me. He should explain what he thinks should be done to improve the article. At this point, the dispute is my organization -- it should be left alone. JustAKnowItAll (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment: that was unacceptable edit warring on the part of both of you and if I had discovered this earlier I would likely have blocked you both. Donald Duck, you should know better: we've been here before. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on Belinda discography
unfornatly your RV are without conceous NAD ARE VANDALISM!!!! i didnt change info, but added more, with resources, so no threaths will be made to account, to RV mine, becauase everything is accurared, you cant fing issues with what i did, Loquesoy (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- You removed a lot of content, which is not allowed. - Donald Duck (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- no, nothing was taken out, ep's were relased among the record, like other artist do, ex: metamorphosis (hilary duff album) see, remix ep, sectiom, things were added to improve rather to take off, as mexican positions, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loquesoy (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your recent revert proves otherwise. - Donald Duck (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- no it wasn't if yu take a look a made it simpler, the eps were the only thing removed to the utopia (album) rather than standalone ep's like otehrs with new songs... they were remixes,,,,Loquesoy (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your recent revert proves otherwise. - Donald Duck (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- no, nothing was taken out, ep's were relased among the record, like other artist do, ex: metamorphosis (hilary duff album) see, remix ep, sectiom, things were added to improve rather to take off, as mexican positions, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loquesoy (talk • contribs) 05:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
User Loquesoy
Hello, are you agree with the user Loquesoy about the articles Belinda discography, Belinda and Utopía? Because he/she is not right: there were just three EPs (you can see in iTunes if you want to), there's no reference about Chile top albums, the "Total" album has never charted, there are many Utopia editions, the link about the soundtracks certification is broken, the Belinda's debut album was release in august 9 and he/she has not references about all the things that he/she says. I hope your answer.--J7y (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome
(In reply to ) Ha, sorry about that, well welcome Donald Duck! The changes look good to me :) Apparition /Mistakes 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. By the way, I don't know if you noticed, but this was the ninth time I haven't received anything on the first of the month. Other times include: January 2009, May 2009, June 2009, August 2009, October 2009, November 2009, January 2010, and February 2010. This probably would have been cooler if it were the first time, but still... - Donald Duck (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Hi.
I added that discussion at the feedback page, just to let you know. Feel free to voice your opinions there if you want, or on my talk page. Schfifty3 03:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism
Sorry, but the uniform info changes I made to the LFA page was correct and in no way considered to be vandalism because I am a student currently attending, and had no reason to place misinformation on that page.