User talk:MPLX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I put up Herbert W. Armstrong (index), which seems to be largely your work, for deletion. If you can justify keeping it, you should do so at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Herbert W. Armstrong (index). —Ashley Y 08:18, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

This page has now been deleted. —Ashley Y 04:58, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Contents 1 lots of edits, not an admin 2 A FOOTNOTE 3 Consideration 4 Clive Cussler 5 Please check your WP:NA entry 6 The Morning Post 7 Berners Street

[edit] lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. It looks like you're not active anymore, but if you come back and are at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. I've marked you on this list as "inactve". Feel free to update this as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 18:07 (UTC)

[edit] A FOOTNOTE

I (MPLX) left Wikipedia some months ago after running into the onslaught of the ill-informed Christian right wing. Although I am not monitoring Wikipedia and do not have any intention of rejoining Wikipedia due to the small cabal of noisy and ill-informed (as opposed to uninformed) people who love deleting stuff, I have been pressed to add this comment due to the sudden interest in deleting a few of the articles that I contributed to. (I have written about many topics.)

It would appear that someone has it their head to sever any ties between John Lilburne and the foundation of American law. This led to a constant barrage of negative comments on the Hugo Black article. Now I see that the idea is to claim that "Carolana" is a misspelling of "Carolina" and to go further and claim that the article about Carolana is a hoax. To this end both Dr. Kenneth Brown of the University of Houston and Dr. Eric Gilder of the University of Sibiu have also been smeared as being not noteworthy and at worst as the creators of vanity and even hoax articles. Such rants by the few lunatics who have gained a noisy control over Wikipedia are one reason why I left Wikipedia and why Wikipedia is in danger of becoming the refuge of a right-wing idiots.

It would seem that a handful of people are trolling with the intent to delete anything that they may disagree with. I noticed the same approach was used on the subject of copyright law within articles dealing with the subject of recorded music and broadcasting which I also contributed to. Now I see that all broadcasts by 4FWS have been tagged as not worthy because they were on "pirate" radio stations - even though several were on licensed stations. However, everything is being smeared and tarnished to make it appear that everything and anything that I contributed to was either a hoax, a work of vanity or unnoteworthy. I also created the history of the development of the jet fighter, but I have not as yet (and probably won't bother) checked to see if those entries are also being targeted.

It is unfortunate to say the least because I thought that Wikipedia had merit, but when I discovered that a mere handful of dedicated zealots could take it over and put their own stamp of ideological approval on it - I left.

Before making more claims that Carolana never existed I would suggest that you perform a little serious research. Unfortunately the zealots have decided that they are a jack of all subjects (and master of none), and because they have never heard something before it means that the subject is either a hoax or a vanity creation by someone else. How pathetic for Wikipedia!

66.90.213.45 00:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (the former MPLX)

Hey, MPLX, you forgot to paste your footnote into Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four/Archive Four Freedoms Parody Discussion! -Ben 03:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consideration

Hi. Under Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, we're striving to introduce consistancy to articles relating to the common law, beginning with contract law. I've noticed that there are separate articles on Consideration and Consideration under English law. Based on my experience as an American law student, they are virtually identical, except for the cases cited and a few particulars. Would you object if we were to merge the articles, with a broad main section covering the standard common law elements, and subsections noting specific national nuances? -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 02:28 (UTC)

[edit] Clive Cussler

Hi- In January 2005, you added information about the murderer Mark Guglielmo and his attempt at Viking ritual on the Clive Cussler page. Would you kindly add a source for this item, which I do not dispute, having no info myself? I note that the article on this person does not mention it. I think the two should jibe, Thanks, Verne Equinox 21:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Morning Post

• Do you object to the move?

Yours, etc., Ludvikus 05:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berners Street

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Berners Street, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Regan123 12:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)