User talk:Carbon-16/Archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
Contents |
S...
this is it! i cannot & will not stand for your disrespect anymore!i want YOU to tell me why in the neko are you so determened to get me removed?--Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano 18:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Saw a comment of yours, went to your user page, saw an attack page, MfD'd it, and you recreated material that was deleted by an administrator. So I put a db tag on it as a repost. I am not determined to see you removed, nor does it have anything to do with cats. -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Bismarck State College
Thanks for helping out. I would have done the cleanup myself, but Bjork53 doesn't seem to think I have any right to touch the article. Perhaps you could keep the article on your watchlist for a few days. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Parker's redirect
To be perfectly fair to him, I didn't quite understand what was going on either. All I knew was that the chances of someone typing "M@^*&^$'s disease" were about the same as the chances that I'd win the lottery. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'd guess the chances of, say, a cat on a keyboard typing "M@^*&^$" are all well and good, but "disease"? They're not even close to each other on a standard QWERTY keyboard! :p -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Gonzaga University..
I probably shouldn't have reverted your edit, but flagged it with the citation needed template. I know that's true, but we can't accept original research. I'm sure it can be sourced somehow, perhaps with the GU bulletin's website itself? -Wooty Woot? contribs 22:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I had to go through and find what you were talking about before I could comment, sorry for the delay.
- See http://www.gonzagabulletin.com/contacts/ for info or a firm source that it is 16 editors and 2 faculty advisers.
- I don't know how it is considered original research -- or what that is with regards to Wikipedia -- but I do know, from personal experience, about the internals of the Bulletin.
- Guroadrunner 03:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Re:Don't bite the newbies
I think I see what you mean. If a user actually has a history of long-term or serve abuse of editing, then I should mention the result of them getting banned. Also, when I said that the IP could get banned by just one edit, I meant if the edit was defamatory. See Template:Defban. But that certainly was not the case for this IP's contributions. I understand that when someone makes malicious edits, they should receive warning, but only good should be assumed from them. Therefore, I shouldn't talk about the consequences of defamatory edits when the IP has not made or not yet made them. I originally thought this IP was a vandal, so my tone was quite firm, yes. I guess I made the same mistake here as well. (I fixed it to uw-test1). But take a look at this. In the last case, an IP was engaging in unacceptable personal attacks, I believe I gave a proper warning, if you look at the IP's contributions to the sandbox. (Template:Npa4im). I'm sorry I violated that code, and I'll read what it says. I was trying to help Wikipedia against unhelpful edits, please understand.(I am also a newbie on Wikipedia. I won't make that mistake again. Please abide by what you told me to do with new user/IPs in how you handle me.)--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem, I suppose I bit you telling you to not bite the newbies, sorry :p -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- As an aside, I would recommend using the preview button. ^_^ V-Man737 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but V-Man737, are you leaving a message to Wooty, or are you responding to the response that I sent above? I can't tell.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- He's talking to you - you made over NINE THOUSAND edits, when you could have consolidated them to make the edit history not so...crowded. No problem, though, it's not as if my talk page is a bastion of activity anyway. Also, V-Man, you're like the only guy that ever reads my talk page other than the people I talk to directly. It's cool to have someone that actually cares :P -Wooty Woot? contribs 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- LOL! It kind of happens on accident; I have the "watch this page" box automarked for everything I edit. Then, for users who have a particularly interesting talk page, I just kind of accidentally forget to take it off. ^_^ V-Man737 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
>_<
That is a cool feature. I have never known of it before. I will use it to my advantage.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
ok
i have! im olny 16 its not eazy to do major edits when your limited! but ill do what you said because i cant take another block! i will go to sevral sex preditor houses and interview them and post it on wiki! just please do block me no more! please!kanpai!--Lolicon3043910 17:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
w...wy did you do that? im trying to avoid pissing of wikipedia and YOU remove my edit! Is t..im going to shut up, just please tell me why?--Lolicon3043910 18:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
But I don't like spam...
Thanks for your help with the spam in passive optical network! Without all that spam, the article is now truely wafer-thin, although I think it is still superior to... a shrubbery (even one with a split-level effect). Riick 06:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC) - This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn. -Wooty Woot? contribs 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: MDG Computers
The comment you're referring to is almost a year old. I was frustrated, and perhaps it wasn't best, but if you're looking to correct my behavior (which is why you would have posted on my talk page, rather than the article's talk page) then a little more thorough research would have shown that I am a largely inactive editor at this point, with no "questionable" talk edits of any kind for months upon months. It's a little disappointing that one of the odd times I do come back I face the same familiar finger wagging that (former) dedicated editors like me get all the time... Themindset 04:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
