![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in UK). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs
Thanks for wiping that vandalism off my user page, ϢereSpielChequers 17:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thing is i forgot to log in to my account before making edits on the user page.(regarding edits on user page TusharN.) Also, i want to delete my account, how do i do so ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.186.16 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for reverting word-bombing on my userpage. By the way, आप्ल्याला पन् मराठी येते! ;)- Unpopular Opinion (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it's done but the user you reverted on Buffy Sainte-Marie has done nothing but similar vandalism in all contributions. Perhaps you know how to report this?Smkolins (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
received a notice that my link was deleted from letterman jacket page becuase is was cosiderred advertising. however, all of the rest of the links on that page are linked to re-sellers of these jackets. please advise why mine would be deleted. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwae (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
And to you. That was a pretty rough GAN. I guess we need to decide where we want to go from here (peer review, CE, etc.). I notice the FIA has made its decision making more open. We could find a reference and add that as a consequence of the GP. Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 23:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Left a summary with the link to the source. Could you check it before reverting edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.231.167 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey man sorry about that. I feel bad.
jcozza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcozza (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe that my IP address is being used without my permission by someone else on Wikipedia. They have made many edits that I do not know of. My username is Wikipedian1234. What can I do to get rid of this unknown person?-(63.148.74.227 (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
Ok I'll look into that, thanks-(96.241.126.77 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC))
I am in full agreement that the Wentworth Miller article is nowhere near B-class status, but can you please leave a list of improvements to be made so that editors may begin to work on the article in order to raise its status? – Ms. Sarita Confer 08:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your response to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bethmanns_and_Rothschilds and I went searching for some sources and I believe I found enough to show that it isn't pure OR. And since your delete was "weak" I figured you might want to check it out and see if it changes your vote or not. Anyway thanks and seeya. --Banime (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Here. :P D.M.N. (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Went to Wikipedia:Requested moves and it explained just how easy it was to do. And here I thought it was going to be something difficult... another of the many Wiki mysteries. Thanks for offering to assist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you uploaded a new Gilles Simon picture on Commons. I had actually contacted the author of the picture a few days ago, asking him to release this photo and several others, saying to him I would crop them. He answered to me saying he agreed to the release of the pics, but specifically asking to "cut off the CITI BANK's Logo" because the pictures were "for business". Since that's exactly what you did, I wondered if you had talked to the user, too.
Anyway, I wanted to ask, how did you do to upload that picture directly cropped ? I thought that to have a cropped picture, you had to upload the original, create a modified version, and then eventually suppress the original ?
Cheers, --Oxford St. (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Where are you getting your info that it comes out tomorrow and not today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.124.120 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
HUH? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.103.174 (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent intervention on Antiochian Catholic Church in America--Midnite Critic (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
[1] How it was before, there was a bit of blank space. No biggie moving it, I guess... D.M.N. (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Shiny thing!
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For plaguing AIV with valid reports. I can't remember ever having to refuse one of your block requests. Keep reverting those vandals. GraemeL (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |
Im sorry but i dont understand. Could you tell me why here please? Much appreciated, Ben. xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.88.168 (talk • contribs)
heman waz up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddevil 247 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
LeaveSleeves, want me to get protection re-instated on Saints Row 2 page? DJ MeXsTa (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi LeaveSleeves, and thanks for your note. There's no need to apologize at all -- we're on the same page. I simply wanted to clarify that I'm not merely on DrWho42's posse. I wish I knew why I'd been invited to that discussion in this first place. Anyway, all best to you! --Lockley (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
LeaveSleaves, I believe you seem to have a personal vendetta against me and will be looking to take this further up with Wikipedia. You have deleted a lot of my posts, some with good valuable external links that only increase the information avaliable to visitors. It adds to their learning experience and the links are neither personal or fansites. I believe you need to consider your motive for doing this as I agree rules are there for a reason but it if aids what is avaliable to the visitor or Wikipedia user then that can only be of benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennis Expert5 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
LeaveSleaves, you argue the case that it does not meet the guidelines, but in what sense? It is clear that the website is an information resource website for tennis, offering information about a host of different topics to do with the tennis. To me it is of a good standard and contains no bias. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate visitors about a chosen topic of their choice. Now the external links section has the sole aim of giving those users further links to explore. Now I agree rules have to be in place and clearly fansites or commerical ventures out for advertising their site have no place or add value. However the site I have given reference to simply does 'add value'. Its add further information not on Wikipedia which is factual. Just because it does not have official endorsement as the ATP or WTA does not make the site any less efficient. As you can see from my contributions I have not spammed Wikipedia but added value and given links as and where are appropriate. You will also see I have written various articles on tennis as is my interest in the sport and again chosen links which offer the best information. I do not want to get into a feud but I would suggest that the case is reviewed amongst other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennis Expert5 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Good catch on that one. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
When you are looking at the box office figures ,obviously what you want to next is whether it was a financial success or not.And to know that ,you need to know the budget of the film. --Roaring Siren (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Now why should this article be deleted exactly? Hm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianeee (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It is probably me missing something, but couldn't that have been G4ed? — neuro(talk) 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
... which should take care of Michael Bunch. Mangoe (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry to bother, but can you please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstairs at The Gatehouse? I have rewritten the article that is up for AfD and it is completely different from the spammy offering that was put up for deletion purposes. I would like you to reconfirm that the article, in its new state as a brief stub, still deserves deletion. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.166.94 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just warned this user about creating pages. I didn't want to report him to AIV without a warning, but if he keeps it up I think it'll be necessary. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This diff refers. I have raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unusual_edit_by_new_user. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
After much prodding and pushing, people have finally started citing sources. Please revisit the discussion and read and evaluate the sources. Show the single-purpose accounts and novice editors how established Wikipedia editors will have a proper AFD discussion, focussed upon looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources. You'll have to navigate a lot of irrelevant chatter to find the citations, and the actual discussions thereof, but I've tried to make them prominent. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Glad to do it. BTW, looking at the history, I'd say an update of the vandalism counter was in order. Ulric1313 (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |