User talk:Lach Graham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This talk page was previously used for User:REN, but since I decided to create a new account, I moved everything from my old account to the new one, including the talk page. Anyway, please do leave your account signature after a comment, or it will be deleted. Lach Graham 06:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Spree Killers
[edit] Comment
I have deleted your edit on spree killers as it makes unsubstantiated claims, e.g. "the most infamous" (you might find a reference but I think it would likely be disputed) and from then on it contains information that is contained within the Martin Bryant and Port Arthur massacre articles. Please remember that things that are true in Australia might not be true worldwide. The other information is generalised below the list of spree killers. However it may be that you could fill that section out a bit. It might also be useful to have a short summary of relevant information about the killings after the entry on the list. If you are going to do it for Bryant though, I would suggest you do it for at least a few others otherwise it will tend to bias the article. Thanks for your contribution but I should warn you that you are unlikely to get an explanation for each deletion of your work - as soon as you put it in Wikipedia you do not own it as it is released under the GDFL - Zarboki 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Okay then. Thanks for mentioning it. REN 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Error on your Userpage
[edit] Comment
Just wanted to let you know that the link you have pointing toward the trenchcoat chronicles site has for Ws in its address instead of 3. Thanks. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it REN 05:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit at the Red Lake Massacre article
[edit] Comment
I caught you making This edit
This is not a good edit because the two old people were killed at home. Notice how this is about the school massacre. Do not add the old people to the list. The old people count belongs in the Jeff Weise article. WhisperToMe 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
- But it is still notable, as it was two of the 10 deaths that day, and if Weise hadn't killed them, then he wouldn't have gotten his firearms, and he wouldn't have gone on his devestating spree. Therefore, it is notable in the Red Lake High School massacre.
By the way, old people is an unpolite way to refer to two victims. REN 07:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jumping the couch
[edit] Comment
Please go to Talk:Jumping the couch to discuss reasons for wanting all the examples back in the article. violet/riga (t) 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Okay, I have wrote a response to your comment in Talk:Jumping the couch. REN 11:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Irwin
[edit] Comment
I'm confused... did you just remove my comments on the talk page? What was that all about? Or am I finally losing it?! — riana_dzast 05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Umm no, I certainly didn't. There was an edit conflict, and my comment was deleted several times. Try putting your comment back into the article. I assure you I didn't delete your comment. REN 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to response ;)
That's OK, I wasn't accusing you, just wondering what was going on. Thought it might be something like that. It's OK, it wasn't a very important comment. Cheers for the response, — riana_dzast 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Irwin
[edit] Comment
Failing verifiability policy means we just can't have it. The phenomena would have to have been written about in a reliable source before we would recognise it. Cheers, User:Ansell/Esperanza 05:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Well, how in hell can I provide a reference to the message if it was sent as an Instant Message? If you know any way I could, please do tell me, cos I cannot think of any way to reference an IM. REN 06:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment on Response
I do not think it is possible, and therefore, according to the way things work around here my hands are tied about keeping it there. Even if I wasn't the one to remove it, it would get removed quickly by others. It seems like a lost cause having it on the page. I cannot stop you from storing things like that here on your user space though, as one day they may be verifiable. User:Ansell/Esperanza 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Comment on Response
Okay then. Fair enough. REN 06:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment on Response to Comment on Response
You may be interested in this comment though. User:Ansell/Esperanza 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] School Massacre discussion page 9/30/06
[edit] Comment
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Yeah, sorry about that. REN 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your "Seemingly Unfair Removals" post on User talk:Carnildo
[edit] Comment
Sorry for butting in here, they did in fact not reference theyr copyright info (I asume you refer to your uploads using the REN acount). You simply pasted in the URL of the site you took it from without adding any kind of explanation, let alone the mandatory copyright tag or fair use rationale needed to justify theyr use on Wikipedia and just kept removing the warnings. I'd say you where lucky for not getting blocked with so many copyright violations. I suggest reading up on Wikipedia:Copyright, Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use before uploading any more images with your new acount.
P.S. Check the deletion log to find out who deleted something (paste in the full name in the title box), Carnildo actualy didn't delete any those images that I checked. His bot simply detects images that don't have the required copyright information and notified you of the problems. --Sherool (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Okay, fair enough. Lach Graham 07:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Creation of Phil Cassidy
[edit] Comment
Hello. I've seen you have taken the step of creating a dedicated article on a non-protagonist GTA character. However, as much as I would like some comprehensiveness in this topic, somehow I just don't feel that doing this is viable in the long run.
Even creating new articles on only character that have appeared in at least two games, counting all characters listed from GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas, Advance, Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories, we may end up dealing with an additional 25 articles (but only 7 articles for characters appearing in at least three games), compared to the existing 4 protagonist articles and 6 list-based articles. Keeping with the KISS principle, a lower numbers of article should allow them to be more manageable and easier to organized in an event that major changes are made on them, and the contents of the lists still do not appear to be too lengthy or complex enough to merit splitting. See also links are also provided in respectable entries.
What's your thought on this? ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ╫
- I'll be going ahead with a merge. The article won't be deleted outright, as there are some writings that are worth moving to respectable character lists. Sorry for any inconveniences. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ╫
[edit] Response
I understand what you mean, I just think he is particularly notable to the series, and quite memorable. Without wanting to sound immature, I will watch the article if you don't delete it. But I see what you mean. Lach Graham 20:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
