Jump to content

User talk:Mnunes76: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 44: Line 44:
== Benfica article ==
== Benfica article ==
Hi, I recently just reverted vandalism from Benfica's article and noticed that a lot of vandalism has been happening there. Maybe the article should be blocked, that way these unregisted users won't be able to vandalize anymore. I hope you can help with that. [[User:Super Knuckles|Super Knuckles]] ([[User talk:Super Knuckles|talk]]) 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I recently just reverted vandalism from Benfica's article and noticed that a lot of vandalism has been happening there. Maybe the article should be blocked, that way these unregisted users won't be able to vandalize anymore. I hope you can help with that. [[User:Super Knuckles|Super Knuckles]] ([[User talk:Super Knuckles|talk]]) 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

==Ban?==

O RLY?
[[Special:Contributions/193.236.121.245|193.236.121.245]] ([[User talk:193.236.121.245|talk]]) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:56, 29 January 2010

Final thoughts

Mr.Nunes, greetings from Portugal, VASCO here,

After waiting for a week for a response (roughly), i did not receive any, so will leave you now with my final thoughts: After a very poor start on my part (i'll definitely admit that), i tried to wipe the slate clean and start anew, by apologizing and then offering to help you and collaborate with you, as i noticed you also edit mainly on soccer.

Your "answer", besides the utter silence...blanking your page totally! Okeydokey, no problems whatsoever from now on with me sir, i just find it puzzling i am called "stupid, ignorant, arrogant" and then witness this kind of feedback when trying to approach folks. I'll admit i was out of line, but never thought that my "wording" was that unforgivable, as it obviously is...

As i said in the paragraph above, rest assured, you will not be bothered again by me (your choice not to work together, not mine). I expect the EXACT same attitude from you.

I wish you a happy one at WP and out of it,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad to hear that mate, i am truly sorry for my past actions; hopefully we can build up from here. Whistle if you require anything, take care as well,

VASCO, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback?

Hello. Recently I noticed your anti-vandal work on the S.L. Benfica article. The easiest way to clean up vandalism and spam is via the rollback tool. If you are willing to abide by the rollbacker rules (see WP:ROLLBACK), I would be more than happy to grant you access to this function. If, after reading WP:ROLLBACK, you promise to follow the rollback rules to the best of your ability, just drop a quick message on my talk page saying as much and I will update your rights. Thanks again for your help in keeping Wikipedia clear of vandalism! — Kralizec! (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! — Kralizec! (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Roderick Miranda

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Roderick Miranda. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roderick Miranda. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica's kit

Changing the shorts of the home kit with the actual away ones should not be considered as a separate uniform. Many football teams across the planet do this to prevent clashes which aren't huge enough to wear an alternative uniform, yet they don't have a different colour of shorts or socks with their home jersey as a separate kit in their articles. Benfica are no different. VEO15 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benfica article

Hi, I recently just reverted vandalism from Benfica's article and noticed that a lot of vandalism has been happening there. Maybe the article should be blocked, that way these unregisted users won't be able to vandalize anymore. I hope you can help with that. Super Knuckles (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban?

O RLY? 193.236.121.245 (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]