User talk:Texture/Archive-2004 May

Welcome to my newly formed talk/user page. It is still a work in progress with the same old junk just thrown in different corners. I'll clean up the piles later on. - Tεxτurε 04:09, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should you remove Template:vfd from List of famous virgins? -- 24.217.211.99 05:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thanks - Tεxτurε 12:39, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey,

I appreciate you moving my Forkbat page to User:Forkbat -- it needed to be moved -- but you scared me. When no "edit history" came up so I could find my removed changes, I started frantically searching through my browser cache trying to find an old copy.

You nearly gave me a heart attack.

Please, if you do so in the near future, post some sort of note on a user page that you move. Thanks.

- Fork

Did you check User talk:Forkbat where I left you a message on April 8th? (I only moved User:Forkbat/EMDG. User:Muriel Gottrop moved your user page on November 25.) - Tεxτurε 12:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I would appreciate your help by earning your vote as an admin. I have been here about 5 months now and have been nominated. I have made many contributions and have improved on my editing and behavior. I take this seriously, that is why I have gotten into it with Anthony so much. You can look at my user page yourself and see my contribtions. I would appreciate a vote in the yes column if you agree. Again, thanks for your time and help. ChrisDJackson 02:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Check out the last couple edits on International Union of Mail Artists and tell me that he isn't self-promoting himself there, too. He's the one who originally put his name there, and from the description, it appears that we'd have just as much justification to list ourselves. He's listed nowhere on the official site for this "group". Is there a "line-item veto" equivalent of VFD for getting rid of particular article content? I really don't want to keep up an edit war with this self-important, self-promoting egoist. Postdlf

I don't think its entirely fair the way you are searching about for paul to call you a name, in order to use it against him. He is clearly uncertain of what label to give you, and any lable he did use is apt to be offensive ("jew", "commie" "wanker", etc.. ;). IMO paul is a salvagable nutter, who is a resource to the wikipedia on the pages where he makes his 'home'. Yes, he is awkward/unpleasent on talk pages, but wiki-punishments for wiki-crimes only work on sane wiki's, who don't have aol. Paul appears to have aol, and besides, crazy wikis can use http://anonymization.net/ or whatever to inflict us with their wackiness. Paul has shown me that he is able to compromise, and is at least vaguely interested in producing a quality article. This combined with his extensive hate group wisdom tells me that he should be worked with, or around, but never provoked. The last thing we need is to turn him into a bona fide troll, which he is not, btw. Thanks for your time, Cheers Sam Spade 02:52, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I actually do not believe in "labels" for any people, only for "behaviors" and "mentalities".

If that makes me a "nutter" than so be it. :D

I am neither a "vandal" nor a "troll" and I will "compromise" with those that are "reasonable" and "fair" and that behave with "personal integrity", meaning to me that they mean what they say and they say what they mean. I was "provoked" by being falsely accused of being a "vandal" and a "troll" and being "banned" and "censored" by a mob of "unreasonable" bigots.-PV

Next time you come to my talk page I would like you to try something for me. Ask a question. Don't tell me what I think or what I am doing in any encounter. Ask me what I think or ask me what I am doing. Thank you. - Tεxτurε

In this case you could have asked what I am looking for in my exchange with Paul. (Rather than a very accusatory claim that I am "baiting Paul".) The answer to the question would be that Paul seems to have a preconceived notion of what I am. You don't even seem to know what category I fit in. I do want him to use some label on me. If he calls me a "jew" or "communist/commie" or "wanker" then I will either agree, correct him, or tell him he's wrong. The labels you have listed are not offensive. I just want to know what label he is dancing around so I can clear the issue. I have spent the last few days defending Paul's addition of critical links to Judaism. In response he has ranted at me and I am going to back off and let him fight the world by himself. While fighting to have his links kept on the page he attacked me and my 'ilk" despite my attempts to help him in that fight. He made a valid point that Judaism is not above critical links. The talk page there has convinced me that jewwatch is not appropriate but his other link has been kept and remains. I think if he can find less inflammatory links that give clear criticism that they can make it on that page. I am done helping Paul. The last thing he did after my repeated attempts to get his links included was to rant at "me and my 'ilk'". I tried to draw out what he was including me in and since he won't say I can only assume it is because it is intentionally hurful and irrational. I will not negotiate for him any more. - Tεxτurε 03:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"I think if he can find less inflammatory links that give clear criticism that they can make it on that page."

The links to the 4 criticisms of cosmotheism are very "inflammatory" and "slanderous" and "false", so why can "they make it" on that page?-PV

If you find me talking to you offensive, you can delete me and write "remove trolling" in the summary, as some admins do ;) Otherwise, you can take what I am saying as what I am trying to say, and not expect me to say stuff that I'm not saying. I think your a nice guy, and I agreed w you about the link to judaism, and likewise changed my mind (as you prob. know from talk:Judaism). Unlike you, I have not given up on paul, but thats part of my character. I have under-dog syndrome, wherein I defend the fringe elements amongst us, as far as I can, and despite their objectionable qualities. I feel it is important that ALL major (and almost every really) POV's be expresed. I defend racists for the same reason I defend hustler magazine, or drug users, or gun rights, etc... because these are people testing the limits of freedom. I think people need to be free to express their racism, so that we can be aware of them, and help them to understand that their are good jews (pakis, palis, darkies, what-have-you etc...) too. And its important to have porn and guns, because freedom of press and defense (much like the freedom of thought/speech involved in racism)are necessary. I think paul has a valid POV, AND I think paul is a nutter ;) I think you a nice person who might have taken me the wrong way. I do think you were baiting paul, and I do think he is uncertain of what to lable you ;) he sez ilk alot. On the other hand, you are prob right to be offended, because he might well say something rude if you let him know more about you. He also might grow a bit as a person. I can't claim to have personally "cured" a racist, but I have seen it done. Its all about understanding that their are good people (and bad, and sterotypical) in every group. And when it comes down to it, its the people w the most in common (Indians/pakistanis, jews/palistinians, greeks/turks, etc..) who hate each other the most, alot the same as how we tend to dislike individuals who are alike, but different in some seemingly vital way, to ourselves. Anyways, I think your o.k., and if me communicating w you is overly upsetting, just delete this whole thread, and write "remove trolling" in the summary ;) Sam Spade 04:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"I think paul has a valid POV, AND I think paul is a nutter ;)"

Thanks Sam! LOL! :D

Although, if my standing up for what I believe to be the TRUTH is "nutty" then so be it! :D

I don't have any problems with most "individuals", only with certain "groups" of "individuals" and that only when they act like a "mob" of pov bigots and pov censors and falsely label "others" as opposed to their own "behaviors" and "mentalities". "Malignant Narcissism" is the spiritual and mental illness of our modern age and some "religions" and "cultures" and "dogmatisms" do promote and encourage it and do make our own continued survival and conscious advancement as a Species as a Whole over the long haul quite unlikely.-PV

Hello. I notice that you removed fractional electrodynamics from vfd and did not delete the page. I wonder what your reasoning is here. I count 10 for delete (8 definite -- Dori, Charles Matthews, Denni, Wile E. Heresiarch, William M. Connelly, Decumanus, Cyrius, and Andris; 1 "lean towards delete" -- Niteowlneils; 1 provisional delete -- Cribcage), and 3 for keep (Kevin Baas, Bensaccount, and 130.39.154.50). I've counted Cribcage for delete since he/she wrote "Revise or delete" and the article has not been revised. Isn't 10 to 3 enough? Does the anonymous vote count? If not, that's 10 to 2. Isn't that sufficient? Thanks for any light you can shed here. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:52, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Got distracted and missed it. Should be deleted now per the vote. - Tεxτurε 21:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 00:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history [1], that's what I did. Tim706 did the subsquent edit. As for the rest, I didn't know about it and won't attempt to police anymore copyright violations. Geoff/Gsl 00:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've deleted some of these User:Tim Starling/Redirects from : to User:. In the old software there was only one namespace and userpages were stored in the same place as encyclopedia articles. Before you delete these redirects please disambiguate them (that is change [[OldTimeUser]] to [[User:OldTimeUser|OldTimeUser]]). Otherwise the deleted redirect will appear on Wikipedia:Most wanted articles and break links. Thanks, Maximus Rex 17:54, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on correcting that. - Tεxτurε 15:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm fairly new here and wasn't around for the discussion of banning JOR (and puppets), but I just came across something that made me think. I was reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyone using a username which is against policy and noticed that JOR, JoR, Jor, Ior, Jqr and IOR had been banned (apparently for something to do with the name?). That name sounded familiar. I checked and sure enough I found Jor. Is this a re-incarnation? Why was the original banned in the first place? There was no explanation on the page, just the list of names that had been banned. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 08:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• It just occurred to me - were those names banned for attempting to impersonate the real Jor? SWAdair | Talk 09:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning these up. I have seen them for some time as an obstacle to proper redistribution of the encyclopedic content. UninvitedCompany 23:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All of Meenakshim's copyvios have been rewritten, I believe. None should have the copyvio tag on them anymore. Tuf-Kat 17:54, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Can you please explain where I'm advising people to delete copyrighted material from text? RickK 22:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. In regards to your posting of Korova Milk Bar on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, you did right to add a copyvio notice and list the violation. Do not just remove copyright text from the article. It must be deleted to avoid leaving it in page history. If you want to recreate teh article before it is deleted, follow the directions and allow copyright violations to be deleted. For Korova Milk Bar, you would have recreated a new article at Korova Milk Bar/Temp until the violation is deleted. (It has now been deleted and you can recreate directly at: Korova Milk Bar - Tεxτurε 15:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since I have no idea how to delete an article, and did not realize that it should have been sent to VfD as well as CopyVio, that's why it didn't happen like that. I'm taking it from reading the above you're a sysop or admin (if there's a difference - I still don't know) - I've been a WikiPeasant now for several months and still keep (a) finding out things I never knew before, and (b) running into things I have no idea how to deal with. Is there some kind of little downloadable users' manual anywhere?

Oh, and why is Tεxτurε not watching 'Devil's Advocate'? I liked it a lot better than Stigmata. Denni 02:30, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

I own it! You're right! But if I log every God and Devil movie I own we'd run out of disk space... :) Know any other good one's I've missed? - Tεxτurε 03:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Photos of Australian MPs from the parliamentary website are not copyright. Adam 02:53, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I repeat: Photos of Australian MPs from the parliamentary website [2] are not copyright. Ring them and ask (612-62777111), as I did. Adam 03:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hey I dunno exactly, thanks for your interest, I suggest contacting Fred Bauder about it on the arbitration committee. GrazingshipIV 03:44, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Vogel is in arbitration. If you have any comments go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel AndyL

Texture, according to the page above any outside party can just go to that page and make a heading for themselves and contribute an argument and recommendation for punishment (relief). Also go to the evidence page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel/Evidenceand list specific pages. AndyL 05:32, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AndyL is correct. You were a participant in the events which occured on Judaism and thus may request relief if you wish and offer evidence if you have any. Fred Bauder 10:36, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I reviewed the new article, and have changed my vote on VfD. Thanks for pointing it out! Cribcage 15:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Could you delete Anne-Lise Tessier? It's patent nonsense, and I've already deleted several similar articles by the same author. For some reason, I can't get my delete button to work on this one... it just keeps returning a blank page, and the article is still there. Isomorphic 15:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This somehow seems humorous. It's the junk article that just won't die. Isomorphic 16:12, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about redirect to patent nonsense? And I suppose we should mention the glitch to a developer. Do you know where to report such things? Isomorphic 16:59, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know the unicode for a dash, I just know the wiki – and — . Sorry.

I wanted to compliment you on your fine work arguing against paul. I'm almost swayed myself, I have to say. To be honest, the only reason I am probably defending paul at this point is that he hasn't been rude to me yet, and he has made improvements, which gives me hope about his character, for whatever reason. Cheers, Sam Spade 04:14, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Isn't removing the image rather a strict measure? I added the source and asserted that fair use is likely to apply here. What more can I do to meet your very high demands? All the best, <KF> 16:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for further details. <KF> 17:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the Vogel edits to the arbcom page. Martin 18:50, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why the reversion of the As of link? Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is a redirect to 2001. There is no point in changing to a redirect that ends at the same article. - Tεxτurε 19:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia talk:As of - it is a time sensitive marker - you can use the 'what links here' to tell which articles contain info that needs updating. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:30, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common on many articles - Wikipedia:As of will tell you how to access the list of articles that are linked to it. The purpose of keeping the same text is so that the reader doesn't need to worry about it. An editor looking for statements made in 2001 (or any year) like 'Is President' that will change in the future, can just look at the list of what links there to tell what needs to be updated. If you disagee with it, I suggest you take up the issue on the talk pages rather than start reverting folks who are putting in an accepted marker. Thanks, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:47, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(My replies to the last two paragraphs can be found on your talk page.) - Tεxτurε 19:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not sure whether it is accepted policy - it seems that, rather than one group going round putting the links in, and another removing them, a more productive approach would be to work out whether we would do it. We are bold in making edits that there is not necessarily any policy for, and these links seem to provide a benefit, without causing harm. I am not going to start a revert war if you indist on removing them, but I find it anti-social, and think it undermines a group who are trying to make updating time sensitive pages easier. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC) PS Baffled by respiration image too! HAND, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You are implementing an unaccepted policy change. That is what I find anti-social. I find it best to get consensus before insisting on those blanket changes. You have to expect a revert when you fail to explain your plan before implementing it.

I like your suggestion: "a more productive approach would be to work out whether we would do it " - Yes! - Before you go around implementing this plan of yours poll the community and get a consensus agreement. At that point everyone will be aware of your plan and (if accepted) that the community wants it. I suggest you follow up on your idea to work our whether we should do it before implementing it. - Tεxτurε 20:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its not my plan, and to be honest, I thought that the spirit of the Wikipedia was that people should go ahead and make improvements. Its not something radical or potentially disruptive that should need permission from the broader community to do any more than adding any other text. I'm disapointed that you feel initiatives like this should need permission to go forward. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 20:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that global initiatives that are intended for use across a wide swath of articles do require community support. You (by your desired implementation of the concept) aren't suggesting a change that will only be made to George Bush. Be bold. Take up the suggestion that isn't yours but that you support. Post it on Wikipedia:Current polls and get your consensus to make this global change to Wikipedia articles. The guidance to "be bold" does not mean to take independent action regardless of community input. Rather it is to spark community discussion, effort and support. - Tεxτurε 20:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been on here for a while, Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. To be honest, I was just adding things that I found in the style guide to pages that the style guide implied needed them. I'm not interested in making a huge issue of it, and feel that you are simply slapping down users who are trying to contribute. I had no idea this was so contentious. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 20:12, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to encourage you to take it forward since it is not widely used or accepted. I don't agree but thought you might like to gather support. You don't have to. - Tεxτurε 20:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

In what order are you fixing the : to User: links and how far are you? Maximus Rex 22:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following it alphabetically unless a sub-page redirect jumps out at me and can be easily removed. I'm at Ed Poor and finding out that if we took his name out we'd have room for the Library of Congress. I plan to return to the start again to find crossovers between old users whose names became actual articles since many talk pages are pointing to the real articles. - Tεxτurε 22:49, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! -- :user Ed Poor

Theory is that since I am changing all names lacking "user:" in the talk pages I clear that it will go faster as I get near the middle and end of the list. - Tεxτurε 22:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If I get bored I'll try to help and start at Z and work backwards (to try to minimize the duplication of effort). Maximus Rex 00:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do I intend to revert? Probably not, unless I suddenly feel in the mood to get in a pointless edit war over nothing. I thought the compromise might work, but as it didn't, there seems little point restoring it. There's not much point protecting it either. Wik's only allowed three reverts a day anyway, and as soon as it unprotected, he will revert again, so I don't see protection solving anything. Maybe there needs to be a vote to settle it once and for all, but I have a feeling that no-one really cares about the issue. Cantus, and previously Anthony, appear to be reverting just to annoy Wik, not because they actually have some great desire for Karl Schnörrer to be included in the page. I'm tempted to redirect the page to the sandbox and let them play there instead. ;) Thanks for the compliment on my user page by the way. Angela. 22:47, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

All those albums you're deleting... You planning on merging the material into the Wolfsheim article or otherwise preserving it? I had listed the problem on Cleanup figuring someone would get around to cleaning up the anon's formatting mess at some point. Doesn't seem nice to just delete it out from under him while he's writing. Isomorphic 23:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message after following up when someone started tagging them for deletion. A list is not an article so I thought I'd delete them before the rest of them get tagged {{msg:delete}}. Your explanation might spawn him to recreate the articles in depth but I doubt it. What would be the content of the article? If they get recreated with even an introductory sentence they would survive without someone tagging it for speedy deletion. Since you have listed them on cleanup I'll undelete them and allow for that process to take place. - Tεxτurε 23:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the combining work. Seemed a shame to throw out information. I was planning to do the cleanup work myself if noone else jumped on it, but I'm rather glad you got there first as I hadn't figured out quite what to do with it. Your one-page discography looks like the best solution. Isomorphic 23:59, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I was depressed at the thought of undeleting them just and have them sit out there until they all got tagged for delete and some other admin finished the job. Three columns seem like they'd fit most computers. He hasn't finished yet but maybe he'll be able to follow the table format. - Tεxτurε 00:06, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking your question at Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions, somebody had removed it and my request before I had a chance to see it; but I have copied it back to that page and tried to answer your question as clearly as possible.Daeron 06:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nice fix on the article. It looked like total gibberish in its original form, and I was unware as to what the Icebreaker Lenin actually was, so I tagged as Speedily Delete on the grounds of no meaningful content, and lack of meaningful context. The article is fine since you've fixed it. Snowspinner 15:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Texture, I just feel that people should be confident of getting a meaningful response, even to a spurious request, otherwise the whole process will not appear to be credible. Yours, Mark Richards 17:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read your comment. I was responding to the comment Viajero left me (above your comment), and it just happens to be generic enough to bear some resemblance to a response. Regard, -Stevertigo 17:29, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the user, i also added a 5 individual copyvio contributions in a new sub-section ===User:Jondel===. For the relevant page history see here [3]. Somebody made the subsection for user:Jondel into a bullet, and subsequently it was no longer clear that the following bullets belong to the User:Jondel entry. As the copyvio articles are now deleted, this bullet is no longer needed. I think i will no longer use subsections on the Wikipedia:Copyright problems, but just use only bullets (see also: User:Avala on the same page). Thank you for cleaning up the copyvio page, that was needed. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texture (sorry I don't know how to write your name in the funky way you do),

Thank you for alerting me about my ready use of the {msg:delete} header. I have spent some months browsing and anonymously editing some articles and thought I should start with an account. I was trying to be helpful, but I will make sure that I reread the pages you cited and not make more mistakes. Although it is lucky that there are users like you to advise (and inspire) newcomers!

Thanks for the photo advice too

jazbell 16:54, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting that. He was throwing a hissy fit over his vanity page being put on VfD --Starx 20:25, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a note on User talk:Thirteen 13, suggesting he look at the speedy-delete policy. Thanks for catching the tag. Meelar 20:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in blocking this user previously on the grounds that it was a Vogel IP, you might want to look into it again. I'm still not sure he's actually Vogel (He appears to have bold new methods of vandalism), but he's now vandalizing pages with links to www.benbest.com, which is a non-notable site by someone in the field of cryogenics. (Most of the articles it's being added to have nothing to do with cryogenics, but even if they did, he doesn't seem all that notable) It's a new problem for him (As it's not personal attacks, excessive reverting, or possibly being Paul Vogel), but it's very definitely a problem, and it's not the first problem.

Thanks for looking into it. Snowspinner 14:40, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This account just began adding links to benbest.com back into articles - Free will most recently. Snowspinner 00:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Texture,

Thanks for working to keep the article space clean - you erased some junk I created earlier as I was reading about how to mark it for deletion. I'll be sure to add some useful content so I'm not wasting your time - keep up the good work! --Blick 23:47, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how none of the darts ever land in Chesapeake Bay. :) -- Seth Ilys 00:56, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi...got your message.

I'd posted something on the VfD page recently, and "Ben Brockert" e-mailed me suggesting that small articles lacking content were best put on the "speedy delete" page, thus saving a "wiki page."

Did I boo-boo?

Thanks, Lucky 6.9 22:56, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's a judgement call but something that is a sub-stub on a real topic can grow into something. If you find one of those throw a {{msg:stub}} on the bottom and it may grow into something. If you find one that you can't ever imagine becoming an article throw the {{msg:delete}} and it'll get reviewed by the admins.

Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme is a good example of an article that started out small (more than just a link but less than an article) but was a world-wide organization that could become worthwile as an article. - Tεxτurε 23:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ha! I thought the only ones who could blank a copyvio were sysops. I tossed on the speedy delete to try and get some attention drawn toward this article. Mucho thanks. - Lucky 6.9 03:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Sorry about deleting the deletion message.

I was in the middle of creating the page and it just appeared so i deleted it without knowing what it was.

I also agree that it probably isn't appropriate for this encyclopedia. I deleted the content, but I was wondering if there is a way to delete the page itself. Seeing as I am the creator of the page I thought you might know of a way I can do this.

Thanks!

Skankfest, at your request I have deleted Ashley-Anne Rios. - Tεxτurε 18:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I just flipped over to RC after eating dinner, and saw "User:Moron moved to User:MyRedDice". For a moment, I thought you had gone on a rampage, until I figured out what was going on ;) Yours, Meelar 23:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Remember what you wrote at Talk:Cowboy?? Can you try to allow other Wikipedians to be aware of the text at this article?? 66.245.24.217 13:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help out however I can. What help would you like? - Tεxτurε 14:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Try to inform various registered Wikipedians about this. Please start out by trying some who you edit the User talk pages of often. 66.32.81.85 16:49, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know why it blanked; it took 10 minutes to post and then when it did, it had blanked the page. Everyking 16:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having similar problems getting anything to post today. In my case it doesn't blank but instead I end up making the same post 4 or 5 times to one article. - Tεxτurε 16:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I won't... I just wanted to poke fun at Wik... my bad... However, I wonder why Wik did redirect vandalism. What's the point of redirecting for vandalism? Rickyrab 01:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What does your edit summary "removing vanity link to someone's individual newsgroup discussion (temporary format in Google)" mean, at MySQL? The linked discussion was reasonably informative, especially since we don't have a good side-by-side comparison of the two yet. --FOo 12:23, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly a side-by-side comparison or even an informative textual comparison. If you found anything useful in that long, and not direct, thread I think it would be better if you or the contributor added it to the article. Very few are going to find scrubbing through newsgroup threads to be useful when coming to an online encylopedia. If they wanted to do that they could have used a google newsgroup search. It appears that the anon contributor was particularly happy with his contribution and wanted to make it public. I don't see it as a useful link, and definitely not worth starting a section of newgroup links in the article. Did you see any content that could be added to the article? I did not. - Tεxτurε 16:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a response at Talk:Cowboy. Do you still have any comments?? 66.32.97.243 21:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]