User talk:Purgatory Fubar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 My user page 2 response to message (March 27 2007) 3 Barbora Bukovská 4 Signature 5 Arlesey 6 G-unit 7 Re: G-Unit Article 8 Um... 9 Peterborough 10 WP:AIV 11 Proactiv 12 Q Television Network 13 The Mamas & the Papas 14 Your opinion needed, please 15 Lego 16 Proactiv 17 removal of a forum link from the folkestone page

[edit] My user page

I got a tag saying using the sandbox and everything, but the thing is, it was my own user talk page? --NateJay 17:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response to message (March 27 2007)

when did i "blank out" info of G-Unit. The only think i have done is remove wrong members of G-Unit. --Peterm1991 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As cited by the "Official website" there are more then 4 members of G-Unit. Please do not remove cited content. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbora Bukovská

Just as an FYI, I added a hangon tag to this page, as I don't believe it's a speedy deletion candidate (although it may prove non-notable, it does assert notability, and there are enough unique Google hits to lead me to believe that reliable sources may exist to establish notability. I'm not, of course, claiming that such sources definitely exist . More information on Talk:Barbora Bukovská - feel free to add your comments as well. JavaTenor 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Thanks for adding the unsigned note to one of my blocks. I didn't sign because I recall reading once that the vandalblock (indefinite) template doesn't take a signature, but perhaps I was confusing that with the "indefblockeduser" template that goes on the userpage. I think that may be right because Hagermanbot doesn't add signatures to these templates. But on balance maybe you're right that on the talkpage it's better to sign. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, you may be right. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How is removing false claims, unhelpful?

The article has no fact basis and there was no reason for reverting my edit.

[edit] Arlesey

I saw you reverted this page. It is suffering some vandalism at the moment, but I have been trying to build something useful there and a couple of my changes got lost. Is there anything wrong with this version? I welcome any advice on what should/should not be included. When I figure out how to do it I would like to a table of local details as featured on other town pages. Thanks Steevc 10:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am truly sorry that some of your edits got lost in the revision of that article. That can some times happen when reverting multiple vandals. I hope you can find them. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've restored them and taken the opportunity to improve the page. Steevc 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G-unit

There are only 4 members of G-Unit, just becuase there on G-Unit Records doesnt mean there part of the group and check Talk:G-Unit#G-Unit_Members. If you knew anything about G-Unit you would know this. --Peterm1991 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have an idea. If you can cite this supposed fact then you will need to do so. I will be adding a "citation needed" tag to that part of the article. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: G-Unit Article

Hi Not sure if I am contacting the correct person but i have recently had a message that has informed me that my article is a copyright infringement of an article on AOL's Website.

I would just like to point ou tthat the article is not copyrighted by AOL and has been used by many other official sites.

I, Being a G-Unit fan, find it very informative and it should therefore be left on the website for people whi wish to find out about G-Unit.

Thanks HSKHAMESH

Please do not add copyrighted material to articles with out first getting the approval of the copyright holder. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Um...

That's not me. I'm the one who reverts the page back to normal (it was like that earlier). Apologies for "Piss off".--Dlae 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about that image up there at the moment, though (I'm pretty new to editing wikipedia)...--Dlae 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peterborough

Hello. Why have you reverted my edits to Peterborough? 84.71.131.180 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There were two IP vandals with almost identicle IP's. I must have reported the wrong one. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem and I've blocked the other IP. Keep up the good work. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proactiv

I didn't vandalize the proactiv page, I also believe that the edit should not have been reverted because there are many products of proactiv besides the 4 included.

[edit] Q Television Network

Hello. I noticed you reverted my cleanup of Q Television Network. I felt much of the information it contained was outdated and/or unencyclopedic. I'd be happy to discuss it with you if you feel otherwise. Please visit my Talk Page for more info and to share your own thoughts. Thanks! Gay Media Matters 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fubar, just trying to get a handle on all this crazy talking business...

I just updated the Lego in Art section of the 'Lego' article, which you or a colleague reverted. It may have been reported unduly as'self promotion'.

While I was indeed adding information about my own company, I was also correcting and disambiguating various other inaccurate or vague information in that section. Reference to my work already existed in the section (and has now been reverted) that is vague or innacurate, which was primarily why I edited it. Additional information was also valid, accurate, and of broad interest. I removed various irrelevant points and links that were not, and also improved the grammar or, and clarified the content of, other material covered under that section. I also clarified or corrected numerous specific innacuracies (now reverted) with reference to terminologies used and to technical processes.

All of these improvements can be verified by following the associated links etc.

I am letting you know this because I intend to reinstate the corrected information and consider it would be in peoples best interest if it essentially stayed there. My apologies for not discussing it first, this was my first wiki edit. Also, I hope I'm using this talk page correctly. My apologies if I am not

Please do not add self promotion to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mamas & the Papas

Thanks for the note about moving. I'm confused, though, when did I move it? Before your message, I don't think I'd even been to the page in over a year. -BlackTerror 01:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the section that i was modifying has nothing to do with Russia or Japan, it had to do with Payment Methods. I was editing to say that JCB is no longer supported as of April 1st. I even provided a reference to the news article! No offense, but I was not expecting to have such a hard time contributing. *sigh*

[edit] Your opinion needed, please

Purgatory Fubar: If you are so inclined, could you please visit this discussion and offer your opinion to the debate there? Thanks. Labyrinth13 03:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lego

Re subsection, Lego in art. You reverted my changes to this section, which has now reverted back to being full of inaccuracies and poor construction - and there seems to be a block on my rechanging them. The changes are under discussion in the Lego discussion page, which if you visit, you should see that my changes were both valid and magnanimous in spirit.

[edit] Proactiv

I didn't vandalize the proactiv page, I also believe that the edit should not have been reverted because there are many products of proactiv besides the 4 included.

142.161.170.196 01:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removal of a forum link from the folkestone page

Just wondering why you removed the folkestone forums link from the folkestone page, and not the onfolkestone forums link. Seems a tad unfair that whilst one gets to stay the other doesn't. Especially as Folkestone Forums has a portal that is being built up to include photographs and information on the town, and has members such a town councillor and up to date information on the towns development. EuphrasiePontmercy 09:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)