User talk:Breakyunit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Copper-64 2 License tagging for Image:Projects 85- Dan Perjovschi.JPG 3 WikiProject Mizzou and WikiProject Columbia 4 Adoption 5 Reverting two or more edits

[edit] Copper-64

Hi Breakyunit. You are off to such a great start on the article Copper-64 that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 02:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 26, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Copper-64, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Kindly nominated by Esemono. Great article with lots of fascinating content. Don't be shy to self-nominate. We have many self noms. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Projects 85- Dan Perjovschi.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Projects 85- Dan Perjovschi.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Mizzou and WikiProject Columbia

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to University of Missouri articles or that you are in some way connected to the University of Missouri. I thought you might want to become a member of the Mizzou WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve Mizzou related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 14:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

Sure, if you want, I can adopt you. I'm not online much these days - can't be, really, with so much stuff going on, but I do always respond. Get back to me if you're still up for it.
Sabergirl08 02:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting two or more edits

Is easy. Pick out the version you like in the history which is vandalism-free. You can click on the "diff" spaces to compare this version to the current, or any other version to see the differences. When you're satisfied it's one you like, click on the version you approve, hit "edit" and then just "save" that. In the edit summary, if you're reverting clear vandalism (so you don't need a polite explanation) just write "RVV", which stands for "reverting vandalism", which is understood by all.

This method works fine except in those bad cases where somebody's vandalized an article and some newer editor (or even more than one) has made good edits afterwards, without noting the vandalism, so it gets saved along with later good edits. In this case, you can't get rid of the bad while keeping the good, so easily. SBHarris 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)