User talk:Arda Xi: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:43, 15 June 2007

Welcome to my talk page. If you need anything, just ask me. And don't forget to sign (~~~~) your posts!

Older discussions may be found at my archive. Arienh4^(Talk) 17:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 89.138.24.84

Hi. Got your message concerning the Fountain_Pen change, however I didn't do the vandalism. Look carefully at the history and see that the user preceding me was the one who did it. I only changed "teh" to "the". I was not very focused when I read it and didn't see that the whole paragraph was complete nonesence, however I didn't vandalise.

Joke!?

I wasnt joking around..i need help, all you people do is accuse others of vandalising, get your facts right before you start typing away and annoying other, i asked for help, this is not a joke.. Yeah well, stop being so high and bloody mighty, i dont know how to talk any other way.... SO HELP ME AND DONT ENRAGETHE BEAST!

Disappointed

There seems to be a double standard in Wikipedia when it comes to so called notable subjects . "The article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content".

In fact Freedom 2b(e) is not a club but an organisation that supports gay people who are having issues reconciling their faith and sexuality . Wikipedia has pages on a number of similar European and American groups including Soulforce and Integrity and they didn't get their pages deleted .

The only diffence here is that Freedom 2b(e) is an new Australian network - and it is significant because its the only group in the world that specifically deals with people from Pentecostal backgrounds - in that sense its a world first . That is why I wanted to write about it . Is a subject less notable because its Australian ?

frollus)

71.58.228.34 vandalism

Thanks for looking out for my page, but that was really me. I forgot to log in, and was rearranging some things. Thanks anyway Rawboard 05:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Revert

I was going through cleaning up what I think to be vandalism by a new user, and noticed that one of the pages he edited had already been fixed by someone, then you reverted it back. the page on In Living Color. The user who I am 99% sure is vandalizing is AMG123191. He's posting about characters on two different shows (In Living Color and Fresh Prince) that don't exist, or only exist in the fan version (whatever that means). I don't want to fix his latest changes if you're going to come back and revert them. Wanted to check if there is some reason you think he is legit. Rjstultz 07:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt erace, just made a correction

I didn’t erase just made some changes to the article, yet I did forgot to sing in + sign the changes. PS. I am the creator of that article Santiago Martinez Delgado. I will be more careful next time. Regards: pgehr9:51, June 14, 2007

Republic

No, my contribution gave due weight to the efforts of a Wiki-crank promoting a "thousand-page fantasia" (to quote Sir Moses Finley) by Karl Otfried Mueller, written in 1824, all about the beautiful strong-limbed Dorians and how they invented civilization. I replaced this with a short, but accurate account of the current consensus.

Please do not assume that an experienced editor is committing vandalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, one of the two edits you reversed was the placement of a dispute tag, which is deprecated. I don't think it's justified putting one on now; but you are of course free to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to support PMAnderson here... I don't know why you're treating him as a new user making editing mistakes (and then calling them vandalism!) -- his edit was not a mistake or vandalism, it was removal of systematic POV-pushing by a known purveyor of Original Research. On the other hand, an Edit summary would have been a good idea.... --Macrakis 15:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage speedies

I don't know if you know that a userpage is not an encyclopedic article, and that there are no speedy deletion rules on those as far as there are created by the maker?

I certainly don't know things which aren't true -- and your statement is certainly not true. Try clicking on the following for a sampling:

Spam is spam, whatever prefix is appended to the page title. Any questions? --Calton | Talk 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criterion is G11: Blatant advertising; like the other general criteria, it applies everywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Please do not assume that an experienced editor is committing vandalism. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 15:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 :Incidentally, one of the two edits you reversed was the placement of a dispute tag, which is deprecated. I don't think it's justified putting one on now; but you are of course free to do so. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
+::Just to support PMAnderson here... I don't know why you're treating him as a new user making editing mistakes (and then calling them vandalism!) -- his edit was not a mistake or vandalism, it was removal of systematic POV-pushing by a known purveyor of Original Research.  On the other hand, an Edit summary would have been a good idea.... --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] 15:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 ==Userpage speedies==