User talk:TheOuthouseMouse: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:09, 23 August 2008

A letter to the editor is unlikely to meet the requirement for reliable sources --pgk^(talk) 07:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add tags to articles -- especially heavily-edited and carefully-scrutinized featured articles -- without discussing in some detail on the Talk page what specific aspects of the article you have issue with and how they can be fixed. This ground has been covered over and over, and without reading through what has already been said you are not contributing. thanks. bikeable (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my addition to the TALK page of global warming under "'only' is not NPOV"--The Outhouse Mouse 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

This is your warning re WP:3RR William M. Connolley 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

Those who worship the GW theory have several admins in their church. Kyaa the Catlord 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. All you or I can do is to put factual information out there. S. Fred Singer is well-educated on the subject and the GW true believers reject him out-of-hand.

They're almost as bad as some of the people I run into in my work on the Islam related articles. GW is almost as bad as Islamism, imho. I'm staying away from editting GW so that if it comes up for GA, I can veto it. Besides, it isn't worth another ban. :P Kyaa the Catlord 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixy Lee Ray, the former governor of Washington state, wrote some interesting things about GW as well.--The Outhouse Mouse 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GW is already a GA, as well as a FA :-) William M. Connolley 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they're autodelisted after being made FA. Too bad. Now to investigate FA's delisting criteria... Kyaa the Catlord 09:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William M Connolly is one revert away from 3RR on Global Warming. He's all lined up. Maybe he'll realize his bias if those who feel his actions are unjust work together... Come on over! Kyaa the Catlord 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Hockey stick.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Hockey stick.gif. 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:

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. 13:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling. This is an encylopedia, not your personal debate forum.

Henderson King Yoakum

Thanks for writing this article; it was on my to-do list for almost a year now. -- Kendrick7 09:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Done. Next time, please use unblock-auto instead of unblock if you are not blocked directly.

Request handled by: Yamla 18:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Wirt Davis, II

A tag has been placed on Wirt Davis, II, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apparantly it is notable. Sorry about that, I'll remove the tag. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello! I see your seeking adoption. If your still interested I'd me more then happy to answer your questions and help you out. You can respond back to this by leaving a message here. If you have decided that you no longer wish to be adopted, please remove the adoptee's userbox from your userpage. Thanks, hope to hear from you soon! Matthew Yeager 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll adopt you

As someone who will be moving to the Metroplex next summer, I'd love to adopt you and help you along! --DodgerOfZion 19:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DFW Meetup

~~Hi!~~ ~~Hello!~~ Howdy! You've been invited to the Dallas/Fort Worth meetup (part of Wikipedia:Meetup). If you are interested, visit our page and sign up and suggest something, or help us decide where and when the next meeting will be. Cheers!

Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo this edit?

"Journalist Carlson followed up on Bush's alleged remark by reviewing a videotape of the interview on Larry King's show. Carlson found that Tucker had in fact not uttered the entreaty, "Please don't kill me" nor words to that effect.^[1] Bush denied Carlson's allegations. No other witness corroborated Carlson's story."

This Slate article doesn't state anything that is in this paragraph. In fact, it concludes with: "It's almost as though the press has decided that the story is too ugly to repeat, even though it's obviously true. But at a time when the topic of governors and clemency is in the news, it's simply poor news judgment not to bring it up."

Now why would you undo my edit with your remark: "Please don't remove portions of an article simply because you have a personal belief that a citation is not reliable.)"

I have no problem with the reliability of the article. It simply does not say what you want it to say.--Rrand (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Noah, Tim. Slate, 2 Dec 2005 [1]

[1] Noah, Tim. Slate, 2 Dec 2005 [1]

[1]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 <s>Hi!</s> <s>Hello!</s> Howdy! You've been invited to the [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Dallas-Fort Worth|Dallas/Fort Worth meetup]] (part of [[Wikipedia:Meetup]]). If you are interested, visit our page and sign up and suggest something, or help us decide where and when the next meeting will be. Cheers!
 </div> <span style="cursor:help"><font color="#FF8C00" face="Elephant">Basketball110</font></span> <sup>'''[[User:Basketball110|My story]]'''</sup>/<sub>'''[[User talk:Basketball110|Tell me yours]]'''</sub> 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
+== Why did you undo this edit? ==
+"Journalist Carlson followed up on Bush's alleged remark by reviewing a videotape of the interview on Larry King's show. Carlson found that Tucker had in fact not uttered the entreaty, "Please don't kill me" nor words to that effect.<ref>Noah, Tim. ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate'']], 2 Dec 2005 [http://www.slate.com/id/2131451/]</ref> Bush denied Carlson's allegations. No other witness corroborated Carlson's story."
+This Slate article doesn't state anything that is in this paragraph. In fact, it concludes with: "It's almost as though the press has decided that the story is too ugly to repeat, even though it's obviously true. But at a time when the topic of governors and clemency is in the news, it's simply poor news judgment not to bring it up."
+Now why would you undo my edit with your remark: "Please don't remove portions of an article simply because you have a personal belief that a citation is not reliable.)"
+I have no problem with the reliability of the article. It simply does not say what you want it to say.--[[User:Rrand|Rrand]] ([[User talk:Rrand|talk]]) 03:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)