Jump to content

User talk:Onorem/Archive 18: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Lidz talk speech: I've reverted the deletion
→‎Censorship 3: new section
Line 7: Line 7:
:The commentary might be related to the article, but it certainly doesn't appear to be related to improving the article. Calling those that have recently worked to improve (by beginning to remove the obvious promotional material) the article monkeys has nothing to do with article improvement. Hearing the insulting feedback of the subject's publisher has nothing to do with article improvement. I don't see anything constructive in the comments I removed. I have absolutely no intention of reverting myself. That said, I won't war with you if you feel like restoring the attacks and other worthless commentary. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:The commentary might be related to the article, but it certainly doesn't appear to be related to improving the article. Calling those that have recently worked to improve (by beginning to remove the obvious promotional material) the article monkeys has nothing to do with article improvement. Hearing the insulting feedback of the subject's publisher has nothing to do with article improvement. I don't see anything constructive in the comments I removed. I have absolutely no intention of reverting myself. That said, I won't war with you if you feel like restoring the attacks and other worthless commentary. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
::I've put it back. The poster believes that it's related to the improvement of the article, and in a sense it is. You and I both know that he's completely mistaken, but deletion of the comment smacks of censorship. And I for one am entirely accustomed to being referred to as a chimpanzee or worse: this kind of thing again says much more about the writer than the target. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
::I've put it back. The poster believes that it's related to the improvement of the article, and in a sense it is. You and I both know that he's completely mistaken, but deletion of the comment smacks of censorship. And I for one am entirely accustomed to being referred to as a chimpanzee or worse: this kind of thing again says much more about the writer than the target. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

== Censorship 3 ==

Hey you guys! I guess you double dog dared me, cool. This is like the '60s, but without jail. First fun I have had at Wiki.

Just picked up my wife, and her laptop. I think I'm going to do some cut/paste from my Mac to the PC.

Busy weekend, will start Sat in Pilsen, Sun at Lincoln Cemetery in Ellwood. Lots of driving, lots of waiting. I'm sure I can figure out this wireless deal. Kids will help, before leaving for Vegas. I bet their hotel will be "wired", too.

Or. Someone in "cyberspace" could get real. Far less messy, I would think.

I'm going home now, later, venue to be decided. wm5200 posting on the lam.[[Special:Contributions/70.91.213.37|70.91.213.37]] ([[User talk:70.91.213.37|talk]]) 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:17, 2 December 2010


Lidz talk speech

The comments by the self-described paid publicist for Lidz have considerable explanatory value about the operations of what I'd previously thought was a self-respecting publisher, and they're certainly about the article. So please revert yourself and let them stand. (If you think that I, as coperpetrator of the despamming -- or desecration? -- of the article am in any way offended, you're very wrong. If anything, this kind of indignation amuses me.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The commentary might be related to the article, but it certainly doesn't appear to be related to improving the article. Calling those that have recently worked to improve (by beginning to remove the obvious promotional material) the article monkeys has nothing to do with article improvement. Hearing the insulting feedback of the subject's publisher has nothing to do with article improvement. I don't see anything constructive in the comments I removed. I have absolutely no intention of reverting myself. That said, I won't war with you if you feel like restoring the attacks and other worthless commentary. --OnoremDil 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I've put it back. The poster believes that it's related to the improvement of the article, and in a sense it is. You and I both know that he's completely mistaken, but deletion of the comment smacks of censorship. And I for one am entirely accustomed to being referred to as a chimpanzee or worse: this kind of thing again says much more about the writer than the target. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Censorship 3

Hey you guys! I guess you double dog dared me, cool. This is like the '60s, but without jail. First fun I have had at Wiki.

Just picked up my wife, and her laptop. I think I'm going to do some cut/paste from my Mac to the PC.

Busy weekend, will start Sat in Pilsen, Sun at Lincoln Cemetery in Ellwood. Lots of driving, lots of waiting. I'm sure I can figure out this wireless deal. Kids will help, before leaving for Vegas. I bet their hotel will be "wired", too.

Or. Someone in "cyberspace" could get real. Far less messy, I would think.

I'm going home now, later, venue to be decided. wm5200 posting on the lam.70.91.213.37 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)