Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archived talk
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 11 Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15	Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30	Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45
Significant milestones
10,000th edit: 25 iv 05 15,000th edit: 12 vi 05 10,000th edit on an article: 17 vii 05 20,000th edit: 27 vii 05 25,000th edit: 31 viii 05 15,000th edit on an article: 8 ix 05 30,000th edit: 29 x 05 20,000th edit on an article: 16 i 06 35,000th edit: 18 ii 06 25,000th edit on an article: 10 iv 06 40,000th edit: 11 iv 06 45,000th edit: 2 i 07
Admin-related actions
blocks (last twelve blocks) page protections & unprotections

Useful links

Pages I often cite

Pestering messages from an anon who refuses to read what I write

I refuse to accept your revert not out of ignorance but because i have proven this individual is a Muslim and he belongs to this category.

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.54 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a militant atheist intent on witholding info about ones faith or are you just reverting for the sake of it, perhaps you think unregistred users shouldn't edit at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.54 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to accept that Emre is Muslim, however you haven't explained why you have reverted all my other edits, People have a right to know who is Muslim, i thought that was what thee category's were for, an easy way of finding out what faith a celebrity is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.54 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you really shouldn't bother after 1 or 2 trys. How about just reverting? Kingjeff 20:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I read your conversation with the anon user about the Category:Muslims. I agree with your perspective and think a football player's religion has no place on his article unless he is noteworthy for being of that religion. I just wanted to point out that several football player articles have the Muslims category, including Bouhlarouz, Toure, Job, Raidi, etc. Should I remove the category from these players pages? Best regards. Jogurney 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you create a subcategory, Muslim Sportspeople for example. People want to know what these sportspeople faiths are, we know Rooney is Catholic, Monty Panesar a Sikh, so why shouldn't people know that certain sportsmen are Muslim?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.5.54 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

Please come back to Philosophy. We need your understanding.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of light situacion

Hello, the reason why I removed the templates was because I was working on that page and I was still not finnished with it. I save my work constantly without finnishing it because my computer often turns itself of due to a cable problem so that I do not loose what I have done. Right now I am working on that page and I am still not finnished.

And yes the article was copy of a part of Hikari no Densetsu which I created, I was just using it for back up information (it was never meant to be the actual page, when the page was finnished it was supposed to be several pargraphs made of several links of information. I Just need time to finish the page that I started and like I said I hit save constantly so that I do not loose my work.Angel,Isaac 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Intentions

I wanted to create an article that talked about the different versions of the legend of light series: when they were relesead originally, in what countries, in what years, recent work etc....Angel,Isaac 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would have included enough information to stand on its own with a link to the main article.Angel,Isaac 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presence

I understand what you're saying about the track listing, but could you please stop deleting the link to the review of Inside? Shaneymike 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Artist Miguel Chicharro

Hi,

I don't understand why you have deleted my contribution to "Digital art" and "scanner art" pages. Please contact me to explain what I did wrong.

Thanks for your comprehension,

Florence Turbet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.15.114.237 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've already explained at User talk:Florenceturbet; you need to log in. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Religion

Sorry, could only really see one instance of the wrong tone etc. i.e. 'hanging out'.Morrad 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right, sorry about that. I'll be more thorough from now on. Morrad 18:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images and creators

I don't understand what is wrong with my edition...if I understand well you mean that if I'm not the creator of the image, there's no problem to put an imagen in an article... but if I'm relationed with the creator I have to "prove" (how?) that I'm the creator and what else? In fact, I'm Miguel Chicharro's representant. "Alter ego" means that the artist uses the pseudonym that I've indicated to sign this artwork.

Thanks for your comprehension and excuse-me if there's not the place to talk with you about that (so where else?)

Florence Turbet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.114.237 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking over

Hi there! I was wondering if you'd give the Theoretical Assumptions (philosophy) section a once over on Kohlberg's stages of moral development. It was added a while ago by User:Lucidish (good fellow), but I was sort of interested in a second opinion and a second pair of eyes on it. My background is in psychology not philosophy, and thus my personal critique is far less effective. Possible? JoeSmack ^Talk 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

derek marlowe

As the original author of this page, I would be pleased to "wikify" it, as you suggest, but I'd like some guidance on what aspects of this new page you consider wiki-deficient. Cheers. El Ingles 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revision. I don't know how helpful it is to list creative works out of chronological order, but certainly the categories are useful. El Ingles 17:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

Indeed, this is in desperate need of your help. It would be much appreciated. Dbuckner 11:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a flavour of the current dispute. The page Philosophy was taken over on 27 December by a person I would classify as a 'fanatic'. This person has a theory that the meaning of the word 'philosophy' can be entirely explained by its etymology, despite the fact (as I have pointed out) that most experts consider the etymology unhelpful, if not misleading.

The opening of this version will give you an idea of what one is up against.

The person persists in reverting to these long and rambling monologues. I would appreciate your help. Best wishes for the coming New Year - Edward. Dbuckner 12:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Elmore

Back in the middle of 2005, you tried to work with the editors at Phil Elmore to get an article going in a proper direction. I was wondering if you'd consider revisiting the article. I was contemplating AFDing it today. As it stands, it feels like notability for the subject isn't established through reliable sources. Every "source" for the article is his website, his forum, or his martial arts website. It appears that he might be controversial in the online martial arts community, but it also appears that that's only because he instigates and antagonizes everyone else. It doesn't appear that a bunch of people noticed his work and said "hey, guys, check out his ideas," it appears more like him saying "hey, look at me! look at my ideas!" to everyone else. It also looks like the article has some serious WP:OWN issues through Stephen Mallory (talk · contribs). Do you have any thoughts on it? Metros232 15:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Tebow

I think you may have messed up when attempting to revert the removal of some content from Tim Tebow a couple of minutes ago... I think this is actually the revision you wanted to revert to, but rather than just changing it, I figured I would try to let you know, since I am not 100% sure, not being familiar with the subject of the article. —Krellis 19:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Occitan personalities

This has just survived a CfD; proposing it again within hours isn't on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't proposed it for deletion, I have proposed it for renaming. The previous closure was incorrectly handled and I am at a loss to understand how you can misunderstand a simple renaming proposal twice. Osomec 11:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you misunderstood twice, first in the original discussion, then when I redid the nomination.but perhaps that is higher than you can count. I suggest you are in no position to be patronising. Osomec 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you Talk page for an explanation of the meaning of what I'd thought to be a perfectly clear sentence, in which I made no such error. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up of Great Wall of China

Hi, I'm not really interested in contributing to the Wikipedia or going through the mega pages to find out how a person can contribute or edit...but while reading the article on the Great Wall of China I found some rather crude remarks that may express the purpose of the wall but are rather off color. I'm just wondering if someone can EDIT it before someone really gets offended. I hope you can help. BTW Your garden is beautiful. This is the portion of the article I'm referring to:

[edit] Characteristics Before the use of bricks, the Great Wall was mainly built from earth, stones and wood. Transporting the large quantity of materials required for construction was difficult, so builders always tried to use local resources. Over the mountain ranges, the stones of the mountain were exploited and used; while in the plains, earth was rammed into solid blocks to be used in construction.

the chinese wanted to get sucked off by the huns but they wouldnt. this is why the great wall was built. to show the huns they didnt need them to get sucked off in order for them to cum all over their faces. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.207.229 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As you may have discovered, the vandalism had been reverted by the time I got there. We're generally pretty good at that. Thanks for the alert, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Poster?

Why did you rename movie poster to the far-less common term film poster? Not only that, you removed all mention of the term "movie poster" from the article completely. Between this edit and the One sheet (film) splintering, this article is going downhill. Appreciate any explanation as to your motivation for this change. -Jca2112 01:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. (I'm going to leave my reply on your user talk page since that's where the question started - please reply here to keep the conversation in one place). I understand following Wikipedia naming conventions of wanting to use "film" over "movie" where appropriate (and in most cases), but I think it is a mistake to rename the article and replace all instances of movie poster in the article with film poster, especially with no discussion. The "film" naming convention doesn't have to be absolute -- you wouldn't, after all, necessarily attend a "film theatre". The article doesn't even contain the term "movie poster" anymore, which makes the article inaccurate. As I understand it, Wikipedia naming convention says: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. I'm reverting the article name/changes back. Since we disagree on the naming of the article, you could propose the name change so others can help decide: "If you cannot rename a page, or you think that the renaming may be controversial, please go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and list it there." Although, I would love for discussion of the move/merge of one sheet (film) to be resolved first. ;) -Jca2112 19:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled; I might have missed something. As the title of the article is "Film poster", and the article refers throughout to film posters, where's the inaccuracy? At the article on Film, the alternative term "movie" is mentioned, and I suppose that that could be done here. Would that resolve your problem, or am I missing your point?

Again, the usage in this article and in One sheet (film) and other articles was inconsistent, sometimes referring to movies and movie posters, sometimes to film and film posters. I made the usage internally consistent, and externally consistent with most other articles in Wikipedia.

I'd not go to a "movie theater" any more than I'd go to a "film theatre"; I'd go to a cinema...

If you want to change the names of this and related articles, why not make the proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves? As my change was in line with Wikipedia naming conventions, and your claim is that this should be an exception, that's surely the correct approach. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not debating bringing articles in line with a "film" naming convention over "movie", but by following the absolute naming convention you describe, then movie theatre would be renamed film theatre. I'm not claiming an exception any more than you are claiming an absolute. Also, I think it is a mistake to dismiss discussion/etc before making the change because you believe you are following naming conventions. It's not necessary for me to revert your rename if you feel the article/name is now more accurate -- someone else can propose the merge/renaming back if they agree with me. The article needs more attention with regards to the content than debating the name at this point. :) -Jca2112 20:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your first point, the difference is that there's no usage "film theatre" (at least, none that I've ever come across), whereas "film poster" is not only used by many people, but is even to be found in the versions of the articles before I found them (see, for example, here). That leads to the second point: both versions are accurate, but one accords better with Wikipedia usage elsewhere, and so its use gives more consistency of style.

Still, as you say, debate over this should come a long way behind improving the content of articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this conversation to Talk:Film_poster for reference or if anyone else wants to chime in. Feel free to reply there if you have anything else to add. Also, you might want to weigh in on the one sheet (film) merge proposal since no one has commented on that yet. Thanks. -Jca2112 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tony esopi patra

Hi, I just saw this user signature and asked if he would reduce it. However, it turns out that he doesn't speak English. Can you translate the message at User talk:Tony esopi patra#Your signature. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Turbet

Hi, I think you didn't read my last message... PD: If you want to talk somewhere else, please contact me to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.15.114.237 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer, and my original explanation and questions – at which you don't seem to have looked – are on your Talk page. I suggest that you log in to your account. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New message

Hello.Thanks for sending me the message explaining why you deleted the text otherwise i would still be thinking you were just vandalizing the page.I apologise for such but i catch some guys lately that delete or degrade pages just for fun but by looking up at ur profile i see u are a veteran around here and u do have a point when that article should be in wikitionary not here in wikipedia.

Hey if u could do me favor i would appreciate.Yesterday i bumped into this article here in wiki and i dont think it has the least interest or quality so if u could check it out and delete it for me, since i dont know how to put up articles for deletion... The name of the article is "P0stall".

tnx again;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.Lost.Soul (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:db-bio

Hey there. Noticed you removed the db-bio tag from In da Streetsz Musik with the edit summary "This isn't a bio". Just letting you know that Template:db-bio is not just for biographies (although the name suggests otherwise). Groups, bands, clubs, companies, abd websites all apply. Anyway, I tagged the article with a prod. Gzkn 02:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the spelling errors, random characters and claims mean nothing?

Wow! Ronbo76 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this up with another editor.

Thanks! Ronbo76 11:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.Ronbo76 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 3 2007 to Olinde Rodrigues

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat

Hi Mel, I have made a proposal on the discussion that I would like you to look at. Basically it is this. Military brats are the largest subcategory of Third Culture Kids (an article needing a fair amount of work.) I propose creating a new category Third Culture Kids and then creating a subcategory on military brats. This will alert those who are unfamiliar with the term that we are dealing with a scientifically studied definable term. It will let people know that we are not dealing with a mere "slang" term that those unfamiliar with the term might find offensive.Balloonman 17:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your comment on my page... I don't like jumping around from page to page... thus respond where the discussion occurs.Balloonman 16:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myriocin

Please don't say things in articles like "wait or add it yourself". The article also needs a source. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

dear Mel, Please believe me, I shall not leave Myriocin in this form. See some others contributions of mine. It is only the beginning. This article may reach 20KB at least, soon.

I have learned from experience, that once I've launched a small bio-chemical stub, several comrades immediately rush in and expand it and beautify it greatly, notwithstanding that they did not think of this subject before. I only wonder how could I attract them more efficiently... Bu the way, I would not assign the high title of Antibiotic to a compound that is just seeking what it might do a living from. Although the term Antibiotic may formally apply here, simple people identify Antibiotic with Medical Drug.

AbuAmir 17:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presence

I tried changing the article, but then you changed the way it was. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaneymike (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Alexandre Cabanel

I will include the place of death in the text rather than in next to the year of death. Thanks. --JuanPDP 17:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Australian artist-run initiatives

Ah, thanks. I had always thought it went at the top! My bad. Gzkn 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphe Nourrit

Hello. The expression "created the role of" is a perfectly legitimate expression, commonly used in an operatic context - with which, perhaps, you are not familiar - to mean "was the first performer of the role of", and is currently used thus elsewhere in Wikipedia, as well as in such reference works as the Oxford Dictionary of Opera (I can quote chapter and verse if required). --GuillaumeTell 01:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I delete

Hello, sorry to bother you, but could you tell how can I fully delete a page. I accidently create two page that are same and while I can remove the material by editing the title of page and the page itself stays open. How can I delete this page.Angel,Isaac 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting in touch with me so soon, I really apreaciated. The page that I would really appreciate if you could delete is Lists of Hikari no Densetsu episodes, I did another page page like this, but I added more information on it and when I realized that I had made to pages I could not move it or delete. What are admins by the way.Angel,Isaac 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I become an admin? and Thanks again.Angel,Isaac 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

summaries

Ok. Sorry. Happy new year!Andycjp 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

"If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." ~ Thumper Shaneymike 16:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to kick me off this website, go right ahead. I don't care anymore because you, sir, are getting on my nerves. Shaneymike 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Shaneymike 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize a page?

Which page did I vandalize? I edit pages. To my knowledge, I've never vadalized one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.33.169 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You obviously have no understanding of this topic or of TDC's longstanding underhanded attempts to use inferior sources to place the KGB tag on innocent people. Don't worry, I won't touch this article anymore. However, wiki is the worse for it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for persuing political agendas, correct? If you carefully read the Discussion page, you'll gain the background you need for understanding this issue. 71.139.33.169 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In my view, allegations such as this need notable backing and not notable disputing. And as far as I know the only backing is from a book by Mitrokhin. If there are other references that he was a KGB agent, they should be introduced in the article." You're not aware of the Mitrkhin controversy? Are you in any way up on this topic? 71.139.33.169 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that someone is a KGB agent is a serious accusation. Fonseca was the author of the Sandinist revolution in Nicaragua in 1979. Is it fair to give the impression, in the first paragraph of an ecyclopedia article, that he conducted the revolution at the behest of Moscow? Is it fair to do that after his enormous personal sacrifice and death? I suppose the wiki public forum makes it necessary to quibble over points like this, but Fonseca does, I think, deserve a modicum of respect whether or not you believe in his politics. 71.139.33.169 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"was an expert on insect hormones..." Good 'un! That was worth a hardy "ha ha," a stout chuckle! 71.139.33.169 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Mel Etitis

Please forgive me. Shaneymike 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough? Shaneymike 23:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Shaneymike 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings?

Wikipedia:Removing warnings is inactive, so where is it explicitly disallowed for anonymous editors to remove warnings? Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings seems pretty clear on there being varying views. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Correct me if I'm leaping to the wrong conclusion here, but from your response I take the answer to my question to be above to be "there is no such policy or guideline, but Rossami and I think there should be". I've removed the link to the inactive Wikipedia:Removing warnings from WP:WQT. If and when there is a new guideline, which doesn't look like it will happen soon, it can be added there. Call me naive, but if I come across a blank ip user talk page, I look at the history to see how it came to be blanked. I quite often look at the history anyway. Being suspicious is like being thin: it's a good thing if not taken to extremes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with strongly discouraging the removal of warnings from user talk pages. Where I do have a problem is with the traditional escalating tag war being waged on clueless newbies. User A adds {{npa2}}, hapless anon B removes it with a testy edit summary, user B adds {{npa3}}, or a vandalism template, and scurries off to WP:PAIN. Well-meaning, but naive, and thin-skinned PAIN reviewer adds another tag, again reverted, and so on until the anon editor is blocked. Tendentious editor A pats themself on the back. Rinse, repeat. The net result is that tendentious wikilawyers, who we don't need, stay around, and well-intentioned new editors who are unused to Wikipedia's bizarre civility-worship, get blocked and leave. This is why PAIN will burn in bad idea hell. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sinn Sisamouth

Why did you revert my edit? — WiseKwai 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert re-introduced an entire section of prose that User:Andycjp had inserted that repeats a lot of what was already in the article and introduced a lot of fancruft. In essence, after the Killing Fields section, the article starts over from the beginning. There are two article on the page. I was working to incorporate some of the later material. Please have a look and tell me which is worse. I can correct my small style errors and odd language, if they are pointed out to me, but your revert put back a lot of errors I thought I had cleaned up. — WiseKwai 00:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep is a good thing. I was near needing some myself during that last round of editing by us. Your most recent edit helped a great deal. I'm sorry if I came off sounding harsh. — WiseKwai 16:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

Since you pretend to care about policy so much, I will remind you that you are not supposed to block people you are in dispute with. That article you created IS a copyvio, by the way. And, how are my actions retaliatory, but yours are not?? If you block me, I will start an RFC because you are so, so corrupt.--67.165.216.16 15:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Banned as abusive mock-puppet of banned user) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lowercase

Neat trick ( {{lowercase}} ). I'll try to pay more attention next time. Neier 10:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Horne

Hi Mel, You removed information that I put about myself on the 'Grip Strength' section, fair enough I didn't know the policy. I only put the info there because someone else had put my name there as a 'Modern Day Grip Master', which is right since I've won more grip contests than anyone. Below is your response to my posting. I also added the major contests further up the page and this wasn't removed.

Why has my name been removed from someone elses posting on the modern day grip masters, but all the other names are still there?

Also why are the other websites still there in the external links as 3 of them are sites that sell stuff, and also 2 books from John Brookfield are mentioned. Louis 'Apollon' Uni has some biographical content to his name. His name is spelled incorrectly in this.

Look forward to your response.

David

I've moved the link to your own Web page to your Wikipedia User page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've again moved the article that you created at David Horne to your user page. we don't, I'm afraid, allow autobiographical articles on Wikipedia. The place to let others know about you is your User page. You should also avoid placing references to yourself in other articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)