User talk:86.17.211.191

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reply

Well, I'm not surprised (I read up on the argument between the two of you, after I spotted your post on his page earlier today). You can check out his various tirades against me on my talk page. Michaelsanders 01:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James May quotes

I didn't revert your edit. (Had I reverted your edit, my edit summary would have included the word "revert" or the abbreviation "rv".)

In fact, I changed a different edit, changing the word "it's" to the word "its". Hence my edit summary, admittedly laconic, of "its not it's". Perhaps in future you might check page histories before commenting? —Serein 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't call others "idiots" as you did here. IrishGuy talk 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Bono

So you are aware, articles can't use other articles as sources. You may want to view WP:REF. Chupper 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bono

Appropriate references appear on the page being linked to. The 100 Greatest Britons page has several BBC links so Wiki is NOT being used as a source: the Bono page is linking to another Wiki page which has the required citations. 86.17.211.191 19:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

However the citations must be present on the Bono page as well - that is why the fact request template tag must remain. MelicansMatkin 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two other tirets in that section alone that have not had a [citation needed] tag added. Shouldn't an article be consistent in its application of rules and policy? 86.17.211.191 23:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That is up to the discretion of the people who edit the article. If you feel that there is any need whatsoever to request a citation for a particular piece of information in the article, then it is recommended that you add one - also, one when placing a fact tag, please place a pipe (above the enter key on my keyboard, looks like an |) add then write date=June 2007, or whatever month and year it happens to be. MelicansMatkin 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I did. And they were instantly removed by one of the megolomaniac Wikipedians who always instantly remove anything added by an anon user and they only got restored after I made a mockery of his/her justification for refusing to provide a reference - I quote: "What do you think the source is?!" (my bold/italics) - sorry, but I understand that sources have to be cited, not thought of! I made a change to the Bono article before and the same person instantly deleted it. Another account holder said "Hang on, I agreed with that change!" and it was immediately restored with not so much as a murmur from the initial deleter. Sadly, it seems that is largely how Wikipedia works and is why I decline to register. -- 86.17.211.191 11:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen King Ethnicity

According to the bio at his website, King is of Scots-Irish ancestry. --GillWill(Talk)

[edit] Gandhi

Re your invitation in Talk:Mother Teresa. I certainly have read reports before of Gandhi sleeping with young girls to prove how sexually pure he was. Unfortunately I have a work backlog and don't want to get involved in another edit war at present. You can always trying approaching me again in a few months time.--Peter cohen 11:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corgan

He was already categorized as such. I added the Irish/Italian thing from memory - I don't have a citation but will dig up where I heard that. But the category was already there, so check the history a bit better before you bust out all those capital letters and exclamation marks, mate. -Werideatdusk33 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Person

You clearly got the wrong person. I am responding to the post above me, which suggest Blu-ray supporter (including myself) thought Engadget is okay for Toshiba news but not for Warner news. I am simply respond it that NYT reports Paramount payoff, but no reports are being made by well-known newspaper such as NYT, NHK, or Reuters for Warner payoff, meaning there is no credibility and can't be verified. If you read my posts carefully, you will find me in favour of adding NHK/reuters source. You got the wrong person. Conclusion: if no well-known newspaper is reporting it, then its a lie, but they are reporting it, aren't they?--w_tanoto (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)