User talk:hmwith/February08
| 2007 | <<
|
<<
|
<<
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2008 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2009 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
|||||||||||||
| 2010 | •
|
•
|
•
|
•
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
>>
|
Hear Hear!
<Applauds> [1] Couldn't have put it better! Jmlk17 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just getting a bit nuts. No one's going to end up completely happy with the end result(s). Jmlk17 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
BRC
You deleted the page for Scooter (Coronation Street character) with the comment, “Prod left uncontested for five days.” You evidently did not look at the page carefully before deleting it, because the proposal for deletion was not unconstested. Now, by deleting the article, no one can merge its contents into a more appropriate article. I know you see your task — according to your user page — as policing the speedy deletions, etc.. But, perhaps next time you could — please, and with all due respect — read the related discussions more carefully. In this instance, the deletion was (1) contested and (2) once deleted, its contents appear forever lost and cannot be put where their presence would perhaps have been more appropriate. Please advise how one can at least obtain a copy of the page you deleted so that the merger task can be completed. — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In the discussion area that was set up to debate the merits of deleting or keeping the article, which you read, I had wanted to insert its contents into an article that deals with minor and recurring Coronation Street characters. Also, I had been thinking that, since this minor character’s only relevance was his forming a mixed race couple with Sarah Platt, he could also be inserted into the details forming her backstory, in her article. I will tell you one lesson I have learned from all this deletion mess: Act unilaterally. If I had done so, the few details that existed about this character would now be in the recurring characters article and the Sarah Platt article. In the meantime, I repeat my earlier request: Please advise how one can obtain a copy of the deleted page so that these tasks can be completed. If you can provide me with the text of the deleted article, I can edit it into the recurring characters article and the Sarah Platt article. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was just adding a comment about a redirect from Scooter (Coronation Street character), when you posted! I will definitely need your help with redirecting since it is beyond my ability. In the meantime, I will get to work adding him to the other two articles. After that is complete, I will post back here to your talk page so that you can re-delete the article. Thanks. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Done! I’ve added the character to the Corrie recurring characters article. His section is located here. Would you please redirect Scooter (Coronation Street character) so that it goes to his section at the recurring characters article. Also, I have already created a wikilink in the Sarah Platt article where he is mentioned therein. Thanks. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Prod deletions
Just a brief note to let you know that when you delete prods you need to give an informative deletion reason. "Prod left uncontested for five days" really isn't at all informative. Regards, RMHED (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Image
Could your please do me a favour and rollback Image:Rangerslogo.jpg -- I am not the person who added it, but I can add FUR. DMighton (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Section Deletions, Nominating
Is it possible to nominate not an entire article for deletion, but merely a section of it? For instance, I would like to nominate the Jan Wong Controversy section of the Anti-Quebec sentiment article for deletion. I added this idea to the TalkPage for the article here, but so far it has generated zero disucssion. Anyway, the article has had POV-section and Unreferencedsection tags for a little while, but no one has sought to fix it. Personally, I think that the section should be retained, but desperately needs to be fixed. As it stands now, it is not encyclopedic: It is an opinion piece. I do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable in the area to make the necessary corrections. However, I hope that a nomination for deletion of the section might stimulate those more acquainted with the issue to remedy its problems. (By the way, if you could direct to me to where one makes enquiries such as this in the future, I won’t bother you again!) Thanks. — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, you can't nominate a section for deletion. You can, however, just delete it yourself. See Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. You reached out on the talk page and got no response. You can probably assume that it's okay to just delete the section yourself. That's what I do. So, be bold, and just take it out. In the edit summary, say a summary of the reasons you told me, and then "see talk page". You may not be able to get anyone to talk about it until you do something (see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If no one bothers reverting your change, it's good to go! Make sure to add the article to your wacthlist (if its not already_ so you can keep up on it. I don't mind any questions at all, but, in the future, if you want to ask someone else, you can go to either Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), depending on what exactly you need. I hope this help. Let me know if you have any further questions, and have a great day! нмŵוτнτ 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ubisoft Reflections
Ubisoft Reflections redirects to Reflections Interactive, company name which doesn't exist anymore. Moving Reflections Interactive to Ubisoft Reflections is not possible since the history has been altered.
Only you have the power ot either move that page or delete Ubisoft Reflections' page so that I can move it. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, I'm not sure I know exactly what you're asking. You want everything from Reflections Interactive moved to the company's new name, Ubisoft Reflections, right? нмŵוτнτ 20:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's right!! Ubisoft bought Reflections Interactive and changed its name to Ubisoft Reflections. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Done Sorry for the misunderstanding. If this situation occurs again, you can add the request to Wikipedia:Requested moves in the future. нмŵוτнτ 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the Reflections Interactive's page. Ok, I follow your advice next time I move an article.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Image
You said you have a double of this image. Where is that, for the spring break article? Thanks! нмŵוτнτ 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that was a very long time ago, I don't really remember what the images even look like anymore, try checking my upload logs, or my edits from the last two weeks of March 2006, that will probably get you what you need. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, it's nothing imperative, god knows... so don't completely throw yourself out! The article would just be wonderful with an image, and if you already had one somewhere, it would be wonderful. нмŵוτнτ 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- You need one of Miami Beach? Hmm.... well, tonight I'm heading out with friends most likely to the beach for my birthday, so I'll take something with my camera phone and upload it, we'll see. You could try finding User:Jaranda, he had a lot of trouble with trolls stealing his password and such, so he might be using another screename, but he had A LOT of images, if he's even still around that is. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 17:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean, it doesn't have to be Miami beach. Any spring break destination would work there, but it would have to be during spring break. нмŵוτнτ 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever picture you think would work in the spring break article. нмŵוτнτ 22:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
TlatoSMD
He created that draft on 27 Nov 07, before ACS was purged from the mainspace. The intention was to collect sources, unhindered by deletionism I gather. GrooV (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Picture of Paul Williams
It appears you removed that photo of the boxer Paul Williams. I object, that photo isn't lacking any sources or information. There's a link on it's page telling where it's from. 210.4.100.146 (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here it is. The image that was added to the Paul Williams article comes from the Boxing Encyclopedia, a wiki-based encyclopedia.
One more thing. When you find something that appears to be lacking some details, please don't just go on and remove it. Please tell to the uploader about the situation and give them enough time to specify it. 210.4.122.94 (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, please provide a link to the Wikipedia image (see instruction at top of page). Also, uploaders are given a full week's notice by the editor who tagged the image for speedy deletion. Note: with possible copyright violations, it is imperative that the image be quickly removed. нмŵוτнτ 05:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- When I looked at the deletion log, it say you removed the pic because you said it was lacking source and information. What does that mean really? I'm sure I've added sufficient info regards to that image. Slayer of corrupt (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not that the image was created by a user who doesn't exist. It was created by someone who simply isn't a Wikipedia user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer of corrupt (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:Justices 3dca.jpg
I do not understand why you speedy deleted the image after I put on a dispute template and explained on the talk page. In light of my disputing it, I think if you still wish to have it deleted, it would be more appropriate to submit it to a deletion discussion. Please reconsider. --Nlu (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
username
Did you ever have a previous username, perhaps Bkstone? You don't need to answer. I was just curious. =) нмŵוτнτ 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, alright. I just knew there was a user by that name once, and thought it could possibly be you. Nevermind. Carry on! нмŵוτнτ 07:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding TomKat
I know that it's a fact that Suri was born out of wedlock, but linking that to illegitimacy seems a bit...outdated. 12.146.102.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IP user who added it, has been doing the same thing to a lot of articles and most of the time, it's not a relevant fact. It seems that this user is pushing the point of view that it's a bad thing to have kids out of wedlock. --clpo13(talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I was just explaining my edit. --clpo13(talk) 02:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed
well said. DlohcierekimDeleted? 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:HOTTIE...again
You guys are having some fun with that, eh? :P GlassCobra 08:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: February 2008
Welcome to reality. In response to your message: I shall resume to delete that foul image as long as time permits. I understand that Wikipedia is uncensored, but such an image is simply unnecessary. The sketch depicts the act well enough -- there is no need for further illustration. -- Grammaticus VII (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Bathrobe
Sweet! White doors do seem to be a prominent theme with us; I hadn't noticed, haha. Well, as you can see, we've taken our pictures all over, from bedrooms to bathrooms to living rooms. So...wherever, really. :) GlassCobra 01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Valentines day
Happy valentines day!!! Will you be my wiki-valentine!? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Grey Bar
Hi Hmwith, as per my aside at Talk:Muhammad:
It only seems to happen when your signature appears at the end of a line. It's not a huge thing, but yours is the only situation I've ever actually seen it happen in. I have a feeling it might be related to the "padding" directive in your CSS, although it's technically allowed I'm not sure that not filling in all four attributes is recommended.
Either way, no big deal, especially since I can see what you say when I view the Wikitext anyway! Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've done a little playing with your signature in the preview screen, and I simply cannot get it to not do that. Again, not a huge problem at all, just thought I'd let you know. It's probably really just Opera 9.25 doing something funky. Cheers, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
Regarding the Bahá'u'lláh article
I sympathize and agree to a non-censorship platform on the basis that it prevents people from seeing or hearing things that are important and informative. This does neither. Instead of preventing people from seeing something it gives them the option of viewing it at their discretion. I am a Bahá'í, and I myself have even viewed the photograph, so as to verify its authenticity (which is questionable, but that's another issue) and to maintain the article near it, at which time I simply scrolled to the corner of it and adblocked it so I wouldn't have to view it inadvertently.
In truth, you are the one actually removing information in the article preventing others from seeing it. The only information given is that there is a photograph. It does not say "some individuals may not wish to see this" or "this is offensive and you should not look at it." The information is provided in a neutral, factual, and informative manner. The fact that it is conducive to Bahá'ís efforts to avoid viewing the photograph in such a fashion is a moot point, as there is nowhere that it says that wikipedia has to shove information into the faces of the unsuspecting. Being convenient isn't against wikipedia policy.
If you observe the actual guidelines followed in WP:NOTCENSORED you will see that having that information in there does not remove the content of the article. It cannot be considered censorship. If you want to attack it on something, you can attack it on a format issue, but really then who's the one manipulating it to say what they want?
I suggest you make peace with it frankly. It does harm to no one and doesn't damage the article's accuracy or content. Peter Deer (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no need for a disclaimer. If one doesn't want to see an image of him, he shouldn't go to his article on an uncensored, illustrated encyclopedia. A disclaimer is ridiculously unencyclopedic. The image can stay at the bottom, sure, but a disclaimer is a terrible idea. What other articles should include disclaimers? Ones about human genitalia? нмŵוτнτ 16:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't a day more appropriate on this block, as far as I'm aware even more severe first time Trolling or Embarrassment offenses only warrant a weeks blocking... ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 17:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- He was also vandalizing & received a last warning. After the last warning, he continued to disrupt Wikipedia. He also used a an IP address to edit so it wasn't on his record, which is malicious, in my opinion. After I've given you this information, do you still think that it should be shortened? This wasn't simply drive-by trolling. It was a combination of several things, and I blocked him to prevent further damage. Let me know, нмŵוτнτ 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: I shortened the block to 2 weeks. Also realize that personal attacks, evading blocks by editing under IP addresses, and such are more serious than editing tests and blanking pages to say "poop". We simply do not need that kind of editor here, and it cannot continue. However, this user would be welcomed back with open arms if he cleans up his act after the block expires. нмŵוτнτ 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Two weeks sounds about right, taking into account the IP editing that is. For the most part, Grammaticus was an alright editor before this pictures business started, he just needs to realise that just because he doesn't like something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did notice that. As long as he realizes that it is consensus that pictures remain, and that if he doesn't want to see them, he should simply avoid the page rather than removing the pictures w/ misleading edit summaries and personally attacking any editors who reverts it. He's typically a good editor, and that's why we would like him back... if he stops going on rampages, for lack of a better term. нмŵוτнτ 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Luis Robles
Why was the Luis Robles page removed? I looked around and was not able to find a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.67.135 (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
He does play in a fully professional league:
Go to Team and then PROFIS
He is the number 2, and sees playing time with the reserve team which plays in the Oberliga (4th level). Please put the page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.67.135 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For more info:
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=487706 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.67.135 (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
Hi, a discussion on censorship is going on in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Nude_images. Some images related to nudity were nominated by me for FP. Probably many of them may not satisfy featured picture criteria, but that will be dicided throuh discussion. As I have nominated some images on nudity, one person have made personal attacks against me. I am strongly opposed to any kind of cessorship, and dislike conservative attitude. I believe the people feeling problem with such images, should not look at them. Or the images can be included in hide box. But I am strongly opposed to any kind of censorship. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
RE ^demon's RfA
Thanks. I know I should have dug up the diffs myself; sorry for being lazy, but I have exams coming up and have very little time to edit. :-( WaltonOne 09:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Changes to Fancy rat
Hi! I wanted to thank you for adding those sources, and other changes you made to the article. I made some revisions/reversions, some of them to yours, some of them other people's. Since you made so many edits recently, I thought you would want to see what i did. If you have any questions, or feel that things would be better in a different way, i look forward to discussing this article more with you. Happy editing! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3RR warning on my Talk page
I would like a fuller explanation of that warning. To set the stage: I reverted an edit on Michigan-Ohio State rivalry that had been discussed some months previously on the Talk page and then not made. (In fact I think it had been added, removed, and then after discussion, left off.) When another editor (you) added the same edit back in despite the prior discussion, without taking the matter to the Talk page, I reverted it again, and added a lengthy explanation to the existing discussion on the Talk page. After these two reversions (not the four that the 3RR rule prohibits), you gave me a 3RR warning and chided me for not trying to achieve consensus. I reverted what appeared to be a settled matter to the status quo ante and tried to take the matter to the Talk page - how is it that *I* am the one being warned for failing to try to reach consensus? JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're correct. You did only have two reverts. However, you still shouldn't keep reverting changes that more than one editor makes. The previous discussion never reached consensus. I did think that you made 3 reverts when I left that notice, but it's still not a good thing to keep reverting edits by multiple editors. It's not a matter of opinion (the issue), it's a verifiable fact. Whether or not you say it is not an issue. Whether or not any editor of Wikipedia says is is not an issue. It's the fact that's it said, by some people, sometimes. For that reason, it belongs. Let me know if you have any further questions. нмŵוτнτ 19:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt and straightforward reply. JohnInDC (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you must've been a *joy* during the Cooper years! (Our turn to suffer now though.) JohnInDC (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Haha, fortunately, I was only 12 his last season. By the time I actually knew what was happening (rather than just cheering for the Bucks), it was 2002... so it's been nice. нмŵוτнτ 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your edit to fix the saying. It's true that not everyone in the country call the game this, obviously, & your wording makes it more correct. Thanks! нмŵוτнτ 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you weigh in on it there? I feel like I'm Talking to a wall! JohnInDC (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Pickup lines
Hahaha, dude, saying I edit Wikipedia is my pick-up line. That's how I get guys during happy hour. You know, cite Wikipedia policy while dancing on the bars. I mean come on! нмŵוτнτ 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Haha, men sure seem to WP:LOVE a certain WP:UNCENSORED WP:ETIQUETTE, however. нмŵוτнτ 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ohh, I fixed the link of BRC. I just saw it from you talk page, obviously. But the bathrobe picture will be available in the next few days... ARE YOU READY? нмŵוτнτ 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thanks
thanks for the changes, looks better, a question of style i suppose 203.202.124.156 (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the Joanne Fedler article? Of course. See WP:MOS for relevant guidelines. But I usually feel that the best way to make a new article is to look at a featured article or good article about the type of subject (other authors, in this case), and base it off of those. You're doing a great job here, and thanks for all of your work! нмŵוτнτ 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Three reverts comment
Hey, I did not make any reverts within 24 hours (or indeed 48 hours) on that page and don't appreciate the comment from you that I did so. Nor did I attack you and nor was I uncivil to you, though the latter two allegations are, I suppose, interpretable according to the eye of the beholder. But no intent such intent was there.Faustian (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
RE: Image
Heyy, look at that! Don't worry about it being from a cell phone; Jmlk's was too. I'll go and put you up now, and then make an avatar that you can use on the forums. :) GlassCobra 05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Just noticed that we're 2 for 2 on chicks with tongue rings in the BRC. Pretty sweet... GlassCobra 06:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think sexy is the right word in this context, GC. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- "...Nice." нмŵוτнτ 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think sexy is the right word in this context, GC. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the Jungle
Welcome sister, to our Bathrobe Cabal. Please familiarize yourself with the aims of the The Illustrious and Honorable Bathrobe Cabal of Wikipedia.
As is customary, the welcome song shall be sung:
Welcome to the jungle! We got fun n' games, We got everything you want. Honey, we know the names. We are the people that can find - Whatever you may need. If you got the money honey; We got your disease. In the jungle! Welcome to the jungle! Watch it bring you to your shunn,n,n,n,,n,n,,n,n,n,,n,n,,n knees, knees; I wanna watch you bleed!
If you have a suggestion for the advancement of the Bathrobe Cabal of Wikipedia; or a country you would like to see invaded, please direct your comment to the Bathrobe Cabal diabolical discussion page. Stay Frosty! Dfrg_msc 07:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Music-City Correlation
You're from Boston? Are you into Guster? нмŵוτнτ 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Massachusetts. More so having knowledge of their existence. нмŵוτнτ 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
re:IRC
Hehe, whoops! Do you use Firefox? Chatzilla's easiest for you then, it's a free download. If you use Opera it comes inbuilt with Opera Chat. If you have Internet Explorer... we can't be friends. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review
Hi. I noticed you took part in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox and I was wondering if you might want to participate in a debate I have started at deletion review of this category and accompanying userboxes here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Whoops sorry. I got your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members. I've got too many things going on at the same time. My apologies.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Talk Page Error
I made a mistake when I used User:MiszaBot III] and it moved some of my talk page messages to User talk:WarthogDemon/Archive/Archive 18(counter)d instead User talk:WarthogDemon/Archive/Archive 18. I just moved the comments there. Could you delete the accidental page? -WarthogDemon 00:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I hope I tweaked it correctly. :P -WarthogDemon 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Request
Do you mind if I use your "mini-matrix" from your userpage on mine (properly attributed, of course)? -MBK004 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll drop you a note when I've finished, in case you're interested in seeing the final product. -MBK004 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've finished, and the finished result is now on display. Since the only accounts other than here I hold are the same as the ones you've included. It is an exact copy except I've changed 'Editor' to 'Dormant' on those. Thanks, again. -MBK004 05:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You have just deleted 'Life Circle after AfD; there is an identical article at Life Circle which should go, too. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for deleting that user talk page for the user that didn't exist that I created. I'm quite embarrassed. Bassg☢☢nistTalk/Contribs 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Three revert comment
Hey, I did not make any reverts within 24 hours (or indeed 48 hours) on that page and don't appreciate the comment that I did, as well as the associated threat. Nor did I attack you and nor was I uncivil to you, though the latter two allegations are, I suppose, interpretable according to the eye of the beholder.Faustian (talk) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I know that you closed this AFD article as delete, but I don't believe there was a thorough discussion. Only one person participated in the debate. Would you you consider relisting it for a more thorough consensus? Admc2006 (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that happens a lot. Do you think (personally) think that it should be kept? нмŵוτнτ 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, see WP:SILENCE. Silence tends to be seen as consensus. нмŵוτнτ 00:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The Murder Machine
? Why you removed the link to 'The Marder Machine'? Eog1916 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Murder Machine was deleted. нмŵוτнτ 00:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
IRC
How do I register? --ChetblongT C 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Like IRC codes? Try the log in ones on user:hmwith/irc. Except your name instead of [hmwith], obviously. =) нмŵוτнτ 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)