User talk:Mayorcheese

Welcome!

Hello, Mayorcheese, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! auburnpilot talk 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fat chicks need love too"[edit]

Let's discuss this in Talk:Glenn Quagmire instead of repeatedly reverting. / edgarde 16:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bath School disaster[edit]

Please do not remove large sections of articles, as you did with Bath School disaster. This is considered vandalism and could result in blocking. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you placed the info in its own article at Andrew Kehoe. That's quite alright, but please do not remove the info from the Bath School disaster article. That article is not too big and your total removal of said info was confusing to anyone reading the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no limit on how large articles can be. Also, the info you keep removing isn't that big a section of the article. As I said in the edit summary, b/c this is a featured article, if you wish to make a dramatic change like this please first bring up the change on the article's talk page and seek consensus. --Alabamaboy 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure what you removed from the Cho article, but your edit summary seemed to indicate that you were calling the Daily Mirror's credibility into question because they are a "tabloid." "Tabloid" actually has a very specific meaning in publishing which refers to the size of the sheets of paper used and where they fold (basically it means, "like magazines, but without staples"). Because most of the smarmy papers seem to use that same configuration, "tabloid" has passed into popular parlance as being semi-equivalent to trash publishing.

The Daily Mirror, though, is fairly respectable (less sensationalistic than the Sun at the very least), and they hve done good work in the investigative journalism department. --Dynaflow 02:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is really on par with the BBC, on our side of the Atlantic or theirs. The British are just as fascinated by this story as we are, and their media is covering it just as havily. I would actually watch the Brit papers for information right now; their morning editions should just be hitting stands now. If anyone has a scoop, you'll see them roll it out first. --Dynaflow 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting John Amato[edit]

I commend your diligence in adding a category to the redirect page. However, in the future, you don't need to do that. Once you've put in the redirect, nobody reads anything else on the page, so you can put the category on the target article instead. Cheers. YechielMan 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abe[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Abraham Lincoln on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. IvoShandor 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican-American War to Anti War Activist? Seems a bit POV for a controversial page. IvoShandor 07:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an eye opener I guess but that's what Lincoln was at the time. Besides worst case senerio is that some bored high school kid doing a report will see that and think to himself "wtf?" and start to give a care about History. Mayorcheese 07:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way I am sure it will be discussed. I don't care either way, the section title is a stretch as you edited it. But I will let consensus decide that. IvoShandor 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]