User talk:Something X
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Mark Wills artist page
I just got a message from you saying that I deleted content from Mark Wills' page but it has been restored. I represent Mark and he wants his real name removed from this page! I've done this 3 times now and it keeps showing back up. Please remove "Daryl Mark Williams" from this page and leave it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swelchmgt (talk • contribs)
test sign (>O_o)>Something X<(^_^<)
[edit] Prod tag
No policy reason -- I just feel like enough notability is asserted that the issue should be discussed at AFD, where someone who knows more about the topic is likely to see (and possibly improve) the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality and advertising tags in Runescape article
Do not remove the neutrality and advertising tags in the Runescape article until all problems are fixed.
Examples of problems that continue to exist are that the Effects on Youth section has one side of the argument developed (the side more positive towards Runescape) than the side against it. In the Reception section, the only part which shows any negativity towards the game is, "Jagex's recent changes to curtail real world trading resulted in "a wave of user criticism, although growth is understood to have resumed since." This is not neutral, as there are many more pros than cons in this section. Things like addiction, lag, and the repetitiveness of training skills, could be discussed, but are not. For plenty of complaints about Runescape I need not go further than the Runescape forums to find information.
Before removing the neutrality and advertising tags again, think why they are there in the first place. It is because the article is not neutral, and whilst making the Runescape article featured is a goal for many Runescape users, removing such tags is a hindrance to the process, and will not fool any proofreader. Ecopetition (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Paramore
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.
Please cease this ridiculous POV editing. NME, Rolling Stone and the New York Times are obviously reliable publications. It is not your place to decide that they are unreliable simply because you disagree with what they say. If you want to waste time take it to the reliable sources noticeboard [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]. Alternatively just use common sense. --neon white talk 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
--neon white talk 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WQA on neon white
Despite your complaint, you need to avoid edit-warring and if necessary, take your concerns up at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
