George The Dragon (talk | contribs) Nice weather today |
84.13.24.16 (talk) →2 individuals?: new section |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
I've completely removed all of that other stuff that was here, again, sorry about that. I usually am more careful about checking for redirects. Have a Happy New Year! - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
I've completely removed all of that other stuff that was here, again, sorry about that. I usually am more careful about checking for redirects. Have a Happy New Year! - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
== 2 individuals? == |
|||
ha! well i suppose at least we've started the ball rolling ey old whitstable? |
|||
or not. |
|||
hahaha |
|||
Ben Lavender, what an actual funny kid XD |
|||
this is well lolish |
Revision as of 09:34, 27 December 2007
Archive 1: May 2006 – Oct 2007
Big Jock Knew
If the user was blocked, the username would still exist. There's nothing you can do about the username existing. If the user starts editing again, and doesn't respond to your note or you can't convince them to change, RFCN is appropriate. Until then, who cares? The guy doesn't edit. For all we know, the user has already changed to a new username. What's more, the user clearly had lots of good-faith contributions, so I don't think anyone would be willing to block them without at least hearing from them. Mangojuicetalk 17:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA for Canadian Paul
WHY?!
are you calling my article on GHD spam?!
i have included several citations and even took pictures of my GHDs...
GHD is like the biggest hair iron company in the UK. You cannot suggest that it is not notable in any way! Iamandrewrice (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have proven the notability by adding citations! Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC
I have put the website on there!
If you have read the article thoroughly, you will see that there is no such doubt that the company is more than notable enough.
Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
go hav a look now... Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ummm
Like talking to my friends every once and a while is SUCH a crime. HIYO (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
excuse me?
how are you in any position to tell me that i should change my user name. My name is annabella... and my user name is iamandrewrice.... which does NOT mean I_am_andrew_rice! as that would make me a boy! it is a play on words...
and i'm sorry for my accusations, but from what i saw on your talkpage, all that seemed to exist were complaints, so I gather that something was wrong...
Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I told you!
that ghd was used as a verb!
go check out what the other users have said!
can you get rid of the deletion thing now???
Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
sorry, I didnt mean to be rude, i was just a little frustrated that no one was believing me... Iamandrewrice (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
hi...
ive replied on the talkpage ^^ Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you read it... sorry if i was misunderstood initially... Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well yes i entirely agree. Racial classificaton is very difficult. However, it is usually determined from what i gather on where the native population resides for the majoritive part of your genetics. I am having trouble on this matter trying to indicate at Latino that the Latin-Americans are therefore in fact genetically the same (as far as racial identity goes) as their Mediterranean couterparts back in Europe. Therefore, the term 'Latino' is applicable to both... while the terms 'Hispanic' and 'Lusitanic' are the only things that distinguish between Latin-Europeans and Latin-Americans... although even then, 'Hispanic' refers to any latino of spanish origins... therefore including those in Spain itself... and with 'Lusitanic' being the equivalent for Portugal'. From this, I can assume only that using the term 'Latin-American' is therefore the only term that entirely refers solely to the latinos in america. and I suggest that both 'Latin-American' and 'Latin-European' are referenced on the page. What is your oppinion on this? (I will copy this and put it on the discussion page) Iamandrewrice (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not sure how notable Adam Hood is - whether he merits a biography or not. The article appeared as a redlink in Music of Alabama and Austin City Limits Music Festival along with quite clearly notable artists. You can take the article to AfD if you want, in fact I would like you to, to see if other people think it's worthy of inclusion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Removal of talk page content
Generally the rule is, unless the comments need to be formatted for readability, contain copyright violations, material that violates WP:BLP or personal attacks, other people people's comments should not be added by other users, even if they are off topic. Even that last one is somewhat contentious. If the person is posting off-topic comments, a reminder would be helpful. If they persist, other actions can be taken, but the comments of others should not be removed, even if that little template that says "Off topic topics will be removed" or whatever is there, per WP:TPG#Editing comments. Of course, don't forget to ignore all rules, but removing other's comments is more likely to lead to more trouble than it's worth. Cheers, CP 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Denise milani
I've submitted the article for for deletion as for one it does not meet WP:N guidelines enough, secondly does not meet WP:V for verification of the information, thirdly, looks like a fan written page and non-neutral. I did not think it meet enough the speedy deletion criteria per the version it was when I've tagged it for Afd. JForget 00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Iamandrewrice
While I understand your frustration, templating this user is hardly constructive. While I don't know Monkton, I did read the ref the first time he introduced the text. Yes, it was purple prose and rightly reverted, but it was not deliberate vandalism. Jeffpw 20:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
i did not vandalise it!!
If you actually looked @ the reference I gave, you would see that it is TRUE! GOD!
- calmly Andrewrice. Discuss calmly. Jeffpw 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
er... my edits were in good faith! you should not assume vandalism when I was simply writing up what I had heard happened in real life... you know... since I live so close... but Im guesing you would oviously know more ey? next time, if you delete what I put up, I will have to report you for vandalism... because I have actually provided a reference... Iamandrewrice 20:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Revert of Jeremy Kyle
I wouldn't have thought this was vandalism per se, just misguided. Problem is it may he held against this editor if he goes on a spree in the future. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about Pick Me Up Magazine. It has been speedied for no content but he's now added content, and I'm going to AfD it for lack of notability. I didn't know it had already been deleted once. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello...!
Good gracious, I have found another aristocrat. I arrived here from this autograph book and I do wonder why anyone would disclaim such a noble and esteemed title. This is scandalous! (expression of intense shock) :-) Waltham, The Duke of 11:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays
I've completely removed all of that other stuff that was here, again, sorry about that. I usually am more careful about checking for redirects. Have a Happy New Year! - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
2 individuals?
ha! well i suppose at least we've started the ball rolling ey old whitstable?
or not.
hahaha
Ben Lavender, what an actual funny kid XD
this is well lolish