User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2008/March

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Erroneous block

Please accept my sincere apoligies. I meant to block a vandal, not you. If this effects any of your editing, please contact me ASAP. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

porn

well the pornography section was more of an editorial where the person wrote that "white women are disgusted by thier male counterparts" I don't think thats been proven anywhere. This is why I agreed that it should be deleted. Maybe you can find me some reputable documentation saying otherwise. Im not going to find info disproving something so stupid and immature. it is not as the other user pointed out encyclopedic by any means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Informatron (talk • contribs) 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and I think removing the unsourced material is a proper editorial decision that could improve that article. However, I disagree with adding a commentary about the other editor within the article - that's why I reverted you the first time, and that probably what attracted the other people's attention as well. If you use the edit summary bar to explain what you're doing, you often can avoid such misunderstandings. Enjoy, Xymmax (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ghost-to-Ghost Hookup

Hello - I do not understand the issue of context on this article which got deleted. What I wrote defined what it was, and I have seen many cases of similar fictional items having a page of their own. Please can you enlighten me on this issue.

Thanks. Talking Skull (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your help, I thought Idi Amin Dada was a pron star. But he obviously isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samthemaniloveut (talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No Problem

KnightLago (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

College of wooster edits

I am supried and honestly failry offended over the revoking of my recent, much needed edits to the College of Wooster article. All of the information is valid eventhough it seems odd. The school is currently under new a new administration and has made sigificant changes. I am a student at the college and have this information first hand, unabridged. I would appreciate both the return of my edits and a thurough apology. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanvanrunkle (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is truly a student, it must be one of those colleges where it has been decreed that the ability to spell is unimportant. I would further comment that the above editor has now been indef blocked. If, however, you are really keen to issue a thurough apology (or thurough anything else for that matter) then I certainly am not going to stop you. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC) ps. Good work on the anti-vandal stuff!

LOL. In fact, I was tempted to count the eras, heir ors, mistakes, but I'm afraid my counting may be just as deficient. Thanks for the quick dose of humor. Xymmax (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax

You know what? You're right about the spelling, and I apologize for that. Your few edits with this account, unfortunately, are as problematic as were the last ones, and I intend to report this account as an abusive sockpuppet. Please consider editing constructively. Xymmax (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked the guy whose text was above yours for a month. If you can point me to the sockpuppetry, I'll see if that's enough

Jimfbleak (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)