User talk:BouncyGlow: Difference between revisions
BouncyGlow (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Skeezix1000 (talk | contribs) →Square One: new section |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hello! I just made an account after I saw yours! Can you tell me how to use this thing, please? THANK YOU SO MUCH! [[User:Toad and Daisy RULE|Lora! ;-)]] ([[User talk:Toad and Daisy RULE|talk]]) 03:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC) |
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hello! I just made an account after I saw yours! Can you tell me how to use this thing, please? THANK YOU SO MUCH! [[User:Toad and Daisy RULE|Lora! ;-)]] ([[User talk:Toad and Daisy RULE|talk]]) 03:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== Square One == |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkeezix1000&action=historysubmit&diff=530772597&oldid=528065236 This] was a very surprising message for you to have left on my talk page. I'm not sure why you though the {{tl|Uw-delete2}] template was warranted or appropriate. I indicated on the talk page for the Square One article back in August that the store listings were a violation of [[WP:OR]] - we had no sources identifying the stores as anchors, former anchors or "majors" (whatever that is), other than the assertion of one or more Wikipedia editors. Four months later, after leaving another message on the talk page in October, I removed the material when no one objected. When I removed the material, I quite clearly referred to the talk page discussion in the edit summary. Obviously you are entitled to disagree with the change, but for you to leave a template on my talk page, without any further explanation, suggesting that I made the edit "without giving a valid reason", that my edit "does not appear constructive" and that I should play around on the sandbox (as if I were some drive-by vandalizing anon), is not only plain wrong, but it was unfair and uncivil of you. I ask that you retract that silly template from my talk page, and then either provide sources for the anchor, former anchor and "majors" claims, or explain on the article talk page how we can otherwise solve the [[WP:V]]/[[WP:OR]] problem (and while you are at it, explain why a Wikipedia article is the proper place for a food court directory, in light of [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:ANC]]). Thank you. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|talk]]) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:57, 4 January 2013
You can ask me questions about Bouncy Glow in here!
BouncyGlow, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi BouncyGlow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC) |
|
- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The article Cloverdale Mall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No notability asserted.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello!
Hello!
I'm new here! | |
Hello! I just made an account after I saw yours! Can you tell me how to use this thing, please? THANK YOU SO MUCH! Lora! ;-) (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC) |
Square One
This was a very surprising message for you to have left on my talk page. I'm not sure why you though the {{tl|Uw-delete2}] template was warranted or appropriate. I indicated on the talk page for the Square One article back in August that the store listings were a violation of WP:OR - we had no sources identifying the stores as anchors, former anchors or "majors" (whatever that is), other than the assertion of one or more Wikipedia editors. Four months later, after leaving another message on the talk page in October, I removed the material when no one objected. When I removed the material, I quite clearly referred to the talk page discussion in the edit summary. Obviously you are entitled to disagree with the change, but for you to leave a template on my talk page, without any further explanation, suggesting that I made the edit "without giving a valid reason", that my edit "does not appear constructive" and that I should play around on the sandbox (as if I were some drive-by vandalizing anon), is not only plain wrong, but it was unfair and uncivil of you. I ask that you retract that silly template from my talk page, and then either provide sources for the anchor, former anchor and "majors" claims, or explain on the article talk page how we can otherwise solve the WP:V/WP:OR problem (and while you are at it, explain why a Wikipedia article is the proper place for a food court directory, in light of WP:NOT and WP:ANC). Thank you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)