User talk:Metagraph

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

If you are here regarding a revert I have made to an edit, take a look at it yourself. If it violates any Wikipedia policy, that was why it was reverted. This mainly includes WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:COI, WP:NOTE, and WP:VERIFIABLE. Please read and understand these before requesting a reason, or ill be very unhappy. Alternatively, if you are adamant it is not vandalism, use common sense and re-add it.

I reserve the right to remove resolved conflicts from my talk page. Talk page will be archived monthly.

Archives

April 15 - May 15 May 15 - June 15

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

We huggle conflicted, I was blocking and reverting someone, as you were reverting them, so you got hit with the block meant for them.

Request handled by: MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't delete or clear a block log, but my unblock reason of "Huggle conflict" should be painfully clear to anyone looking at it that you did nothing wrong. Feel free to loudly curse my name at a future RFA. MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris Willis Page

I'm not sure why you have against chris willis. But his quite notable in fields and deserves more credit. I'll person write his page, but please don't delete it because you are not aware of his notability as simple google search or you tube search would return notable hits. He's a popular icon in the dance house music industry and is the voice behind every David Guetta number 1 song. Give the guys some credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.55.249 (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page, Metagraph comment

The edits made by the above user were not vandalism. From the lead of Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." The edits were however copyvios from his MySpace page. Be careful when calling edits vandalism. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page, Metagraph comment

Sure, this diff. ~ Eóin (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skillz

The edit was relevant. I even included a citation to the interview from which I gathered the information. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please do not leave anything at this IP's talk page. This is a shared address. Discuss it on your own page. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC) I repeat, this has been discussed with a Wikipedian editor before. The page was purposefully blanked because this is a shared IP. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would REALLY appreciate you keeping discussions on your talk page, as you are a registered user and I am not. Furthermore I'm not sure what "spamlinked" implies, but if you're saying it's not a valid citation I would check around. The author of that interview is a known radio show host, writer and magazine editor. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Whatever happened to "good faith edits" anyway? And why do you have a particular interest in a relatively obscure hip-hop artist? Some might even argue he wouldn't meet a notability test. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits are not ones that involve adding non-notable review sites, claiming they're professional ones in order to promote a website. Good faith can only be assumed for so much, but you have added this to many, many pages, also copying the site over other review sites which will could be reverted when deemed nessecary. Metagraph comment 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I'm not sure we're speaking the same language. That doesn't even make sense. I have also never removed a single review from any page; in fact I have sorted them alphabetically to make them easier to peruse. If you're being so mindful of my edits please get your facts straight. See also the talk page you have deemed mine, regrettably. (That should be vandalism too.) 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your other question, I had previously requested the talk page be blanked because this is a shared IP, and in fact it was speedtracked for removal. I objected to the lack of an image on a page and the comment I left on the deleted image was removed, and since I agreed with the editor who removed it there was no point in "talking" about it or "discussing" it - we both agreed the comment was unnecessary. 68.229.185.47 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]