User talk:Otterathome

Super Smash Bros. Melee FAC

Your concern has been addressed here, thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your further concerns have now been addressed. Thanks.Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Oscar Wilde

WP:SERIOUS notwithstanding, you have been reverted. You could try it on Dubya's page, I suppose, but it wouldn't last long there either. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Otters

Yay, another otter at home editing Wikipedia! (See my user page regarding my in-joke on otters.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

sarcasm

You may want to consider reading this. I believe, as you seem to, that Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, but there is no need to be constantly smarmy and sarcastic with everyone. Just a thought. Thanks for your time. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

searching for sources of an article is a common sense thing to do before nominating it for deletion.. I was simply suggesting you do that in future.--Otterathome (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a big thing here, but explaining why you removed a prod template from an article is a common sense thing too. If you read the template, it encourages editors who disagree to edit the article, and explain why the removed the prod. If you had done that, I would have known why it was de-prodded and it never would have went to AfD. The article in it's original form read more like some kid's made up idea for a term paper, and the only explanation I saw for why you removed the prod is that you felt it was put there by "deletionists". Beeblbrox (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not searching about an article to check if it's true/notable then trying to get it deleted is just plain lazyness. Seeing as the article was copied and pasted from The Times, I don't quite see how it looks like a kids made up idea for a term paper.--Otterathome (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez. OK, let me explain even further. I may have taken assume good faith a little far, in that I assumed the person who put the PROD up checked it out beforehand, when I added the PROD2. Then you removed both templates with no explanation, so I took it to AfD. I was frankly shocked that it was a copyvio from the Times, as I honestly don't think it was well written at all, but I suppose that's neither here nor there at this point. My point about the sarcasm, however, is that both your edit summary for the prod removal and your vote at AfD consist of nothing but sarcastic remarks, as opposed to citing logic and Wikipedia policies to back up your stance. I'm not saying you were wrong, just that it does not help your case to be sarcastic. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

oops

Sorry. I didn't pay attention to your edit summary. My apologies. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Rsnbrgr

Mucho thanx for the tag fix to my user page! My very best to you. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User:CP\M/User

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on User:CP\M/User. The reason I declined it is because it's a subpage of an existing user's userpage. Please note that if there's a slash (/) in a page in the User: namespace, the everything before it is the page name, and what's after it is a subpage name. . For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How confusing. Sorry for time waste.--Otterathome (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that seems a bit unfair...

I saw your article you wrote regarding citing Uncyclopedia, and your belief that only vandals edit there, that it incites edit wars, and all other distasteful things. I can say personally as a Pee Reviewer there, that a lot of Uncyclopedia editors are dedicated to writing humourous articles, and that there actually is a defination as to what vandalism is (and such edits are indeed reverted!) While the edits encouraged on Uncyclopedia may be considered Vandalism on Wikipedia, that does not mean that one cannot edit both and equally contribute.

Warm regards, Javascap (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For quoting what I had to say about Uncyclopedia. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

You recently re-added some of my old pages on the page for MfD at User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3. Please don't re-add stuff to that page, please. I will keep deleting them. Report me at 3RR, and I swear I will take immediate action, as this is just wrong. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Thank you. Might I ask how you came to find that message? DS (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Comer

The sources are already sufficient according to the notability criteria. There is absolutely no reason the sources need to be independent of Wizards of the Coast. The sources need to be independent of Alan Comer, and they are. Some of the articles have already survived AFDs with the very reasoning you're suggesting. Your PROD was poorly explained and I provided a reasoning when I contested it. I was not merely removing the template. I understand WP:N and these articles are fine. Jay32183 (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

It looks like I forgot to thank you for your essay(I thought I'd thanked you on the talk page of that essay, but seeing as there is none I must be mistaken.); it inspired an article on Uncyclopedia, you see. Anyways, I'd offer a link, but under the circumstances it seems inappropriate. Cheers, - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 16:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)