User talk:Neutralhomer

---

Edit removal at Stephens City

Why would you revert my recent edit to Stephens City, Virginia? The edit was entirely beneficial and contributive, and I do not see how anyone could think otherwise. Please allow me to restore my edit, or do so yourself. Thank you.--ɱ (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The link that you added gave the same information as the one you removed, so an unnecessary change. When you removed the name of the town from the "Demographics" section with the edit summary, "lol nobody reads this section", that didn't show you were here to edit constructively. The article you are editing is a Featured Article and any changes need to be discussed on the talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the link is not the same. Try viewing the old and new links in an incognito browser. One links to Stephens City, the other links to the United States by default. Your browser cookies make it that it directs to Stephens City, but it won't do that for the general public. Regarding the name of the town, it is supposed to go there and is an improperly constructed sentence without it. And if I am joking or unprofessional with my edit summaries, that's okay. There's no rule against that. As for the 'FA' status, I've never heard of such a rule, I think it is contrary to Wikipedia's policies of anyone allowed to edit, etc., and if you really want nobody to edit your perfect page that you spent so much time on, then try bargaining for page protection. Meanwhile, if there is some dumb rule in Wiki policy stating that no direct edits can ever be made to FA articles, please direct me to it so that I may lobby against it.--ɱ (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)--ɱ (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WCDX

Sir, It seems to me that in looking at most of the stations in the Richmond Market, You have Deleted all the History of these stations. Maybe it's you, but if you do your research you'll find the information I posted about WCDX was accurate. You don't own Wikipedia or the right to delete everyone who posts something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiofox35 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read the VARTV article, IF you known anything about radio or have worked in Radio, You would see the information I Provided about WCDX is accurate, Just look at the History of the call letters or why don't you do the research yourself. Since YOUR right and everyone else is wrong.

You've deleted each stations History in the Richmond Market, What have you got again the History of these stations. Maybe you aren't aware but There was no Clear Channel or Radio One 20 years ago. People who really Loved what Radio used to be enjoy reading the History of the Stations.

Get Over Yourself Sir, It's Not all about You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiofox35 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to make a point. You cannot have it any way but your own, can't you? You just don't want that rookie editor to have his information there. And for the record, that source is just about as reliable as the Encyclopædia Britannica.--ɱ (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dude, VARTV is not in the same league as Britannica. That would be like saying some dude's blog is in as reliable as the New York Times. It isn't. You're embarrassing yourself, so just stop. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you've only been around 2 minutes and think this is your wiki. FO. Nasnema  Chat  01:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hi. I've requested clarification on whether you may add infoboxes on her behalf to articles Gerda is restricted from adding them to at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:Infoboxes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)