User talk:Amanduhh

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadway blogging

Hi Amanduhh, welcome! I came across the above AfD nomination that you started and saw that the three-step nomination process was not completed. (The procedures can be found at WP:AFD.) If the procedures are not precisely followed, the nomination will not make it to the AfD project page where editors go to review noms. I completed this nom for you, but you should go through any other noms you have made to make sure all three steps were completed. Thanks, and again, welcome! Regards, Accurizer 03:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Amanduhh, I realise that you are new to Wiki, but edits such as this are in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:VAND. You are cautioned to make no further edits along these lines. Thanks. Jim62sch 11:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this in mind.--Amanduhh 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

In your nomination for deletion of the articleRon Gunzburger you said "Mamma mia. This crap is mind blowing. This guy is known for nothing other than a blog and was clearly written by the man himself. Since he has no true contribution to mankind and will be lost in history along with all of the other nameless bloggers, I hereby decree this wiki page "nominated for deletion". I felt that part of that went a little farther than it should so I removed the words "Since he has no true contribution to mankind and will be lost in history along with all of the other nameless bloggers," both on the grounds that it was a personal attack and that it is a crystal ball statement. I did this as a member of the Wikipedia Living People Patrol (yes, I know it sounds like something from "Night of the Living Dead" but that's the name they chose) and I feel it was in accord with Wikipedia policies. If you disagree with this action, you may contact me on my talk page. Regards. Edison 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Thank you for alerting me to this fact. --Amanduhh 19:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi. I wonder if you'd consider avoiding edit summaries like this? I have nothing to say in defense of that edit, and it was good that you reverted it, but is it really necessary to make insulting remarks about the person in the edit summary? I think it's a lot nicer to work here when we maintain an atmosphere of respectful courtesy, even when dealing with obvious vandals. It's just more professional. Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very quick to anger when people try to ruin such a helpful and wonderful thing like Wikipedia. It really just pisses me off. I'm sorry and I'll refrain from further behavior such as that. --Amanduhh 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]