User talk:Kittins floating in the sky yay

sorry to see you go

Come back soon. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe.. Thanks. I think wikipedia has to be the most hostile online community there is, tho (I run my own website and hang about on several other places) --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kfitsy, I have undone you editting to Conduit (publisher network and platform) as you yourself did not add to the article, but totally replaced the content. You could edit this more constructively by adding to the material there. Your sources should not be google searches or forums, but places like anti virus or antimalware sites. If you find that Wikipedia is a hostile place you should examine your own edits to see why that is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kittins floating in the sky yay. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

UOJComm (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Hi, Kittins floating in the sky yay. I am Dianna, and I am an administrator on this wiki. I have reviewed some of your recent edits at the request of another user, and found that inappropriate speedy deletion tags were added to several articles about mobile apps for smart phones and related articles.

These articles were in good shape and did not qualify for speedy deletion under the criterion you selected. Whether the user who wrote the articles is an employee of these four companies is immaterial in this instance, as they are well-written and well-sourced, and thus do not qualify under CSD G11. As a matter of fact, User:Beobjectiveplease has been editing here on a variety of topics for nearly a year.

If you still think any of the articles should be deleted, please feel free to nominate them at WP:AFD. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto

I reverted your edit on Esperanto and threw in a couple of ^{[citation needed]}s on the numbers instead. Really, most of your edit was little more than WP:POV trying to show how little-spoken the language is. And what is "constructed language" if not "artificial", anyway? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami has reverted your edit this time. If you revert once more, it'll officially be an Edit War. there's nothing in the article that makes it out as if Esperanto were "hugely popular". It's the single most popular constructed language, and I don't see the article claiming anything else. Besides, you also reverted the "artificial constructed language" line. Did I miss something? Are there natural constructed languages? I'm trying to assume good faith here, but you're stretching credibility with that one. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've broken WP:3RR. I'll be seeking an administrator to deal with this. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Esperanto. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fucking broken retarded system idiots, of course the people most watching that page are going to be biased, your "consensus" is just the spanish inquisition. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the system, Kittins. It's your one-sided belligerence, condescending attitude, and complete unwillingness to communicate. I've addressed some of your concerns above, and you won't even respond. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 09:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please mind WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely clear about why you're edit-warring to add a 'citation needed' tag to the number of Esperanto speakers, when that citation is given, and the difficulty of estimating the number of speakers discussed in details, in this section of the article. I looked on the talk page to see where you'd explained in more detail exactly what was not working for you about the citation that's already in the article, but I couldn't find the section. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Unloved - Lucy sitting on a grass hill.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Unloved - Lucy sitting on a grass hill.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]