User talk:Walor/archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] HTML
the only HTML code i am adding is <br clear=all>, and it is for templates. i have fellow Wikipedian Azumanga1 helping me in this. don't worry. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Very well. not like i care too much about it. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 03:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
What content am I deleting? You mean the note about who was a Rosenfeld/Conacher winner and who wasn't (I was the first one to add that by the way)? That can easily be adapted into the table. I am also willing to go to WP:RFC, so we'd best work something out. I'll readd the stars for past winners if it means that much to you. And as for the colour, I added colour in the original version because I wanted the winners of the Rosenfeld/Conacher trophies to be easily distinguishable and the current star system doesn't really stand out. The current colouring is how many single line lists are done because it is easier to read. -- Scorpion 01:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- What was so bad about the edits the other editor made? Would you object to reverting back to the table before those edits were made? -- Scorpion 02:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Peter Maher at Calgary Flames
Actually, the importance of the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award is not my POV. Its importance is defined by the fact that the Hockey Hall of Fame itself makes mention of it. That the NHL makes mention of it, and that most publications talking about any year's hall of fame make mention of it. I am reverting your removal one more time, and adding a request at both the talk page at Calgary Flames, and at WP:HOCKEY for others to weigh in. I ask, and expect, that you will respect the consensus of the community. Resolute 16:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- And your personal opinion that Maher should not be included is also just that, a personal opinion. It is likewise not fact. Given we have conflicting opinions, it is appropriate to have the community decide. Resolute 17:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why was the information on a curse of the Hockey Team, Toronto Maple Leafs deleted?
Good day. I am going to ask you why you have removed the bit I added about the possibility of a curse on the Toronto Maple Leafs. How is it violating Wikipedia rules? You directed me to a page of what Wikipedia "is not". I did not read anything in there claiming you can not mention the possibility or appearance of a curse. What I sumbitted is mentioning the possibility of a curse. Not claiming it. I am wondering if this is an error? Would you like me to instead create a new Wikipedia article about the Curse and add it to the section instead of the Toronto Maple Leafs page?
Thank You. Mr Canada 06:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, please double check what you revert. In this instance the revision you reverted was somewhat serious vandalism, attacking a living person. Thanks, Mak (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bavaria and reverting
Try not to be too quick on the reverts. 65.96.29.235 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) was inexpertly trying to revert the bad edits by 90.186.219.91 (talk • contribs • WHOIS), but you then reinstated the bad edits. I try to go back in the history until I know the correct point to revert back to. It sometimes is difficult, especially as the last several edits might be bad! Shenme 03:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
