User talk:Unconventional/Archive 1
Here are some links I thought useful:
Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 21:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Gay SkinheadsHi there! I took a gander at your reworked Gay skinheads article and I think it is MUCH improved. I will probably have a couple suggestions, but haven't given it a close enough read to articulate anything yet. In general though, good job! Also, I am glad to see that you haev decided to stick around. I happened here on accident and haven't left yet. I am quite busy this week but will come back to this when I can. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 15:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) Well, by the law itself there had to be some ghastly mistakes in the article! Thanks for picking them up. Mis-spelling the law itself was pretty classic. PamD (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
SignaturesYou left a vandalism notice for Brockthornton and you didn't sign your comment, please be more careful as sometimes this causes confusion to new editors, I know it was probably a mistake but just telling you.
No there isn't a reason for them not to autosign, you would think they would, but I guess not, but like I said it was an accident everybody makes mistakes. Just press the preview button before you look at comments and edits, and such you know the drill probably just a little refreshing wouldn't hurt. Really it is astonishing that it doesn't autosign I can't get over that. WOW! HairyPerry 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC) I see there's still one untranslated passage in this article's text, in the Museums section: <<un fondo museográfico integrado por more than 2,600 registros de elementos of the Guanche culture>>. May I suggest: <<a museological [or research or archival] collection comprising more than 2,600 specimens of items from the Guanche culture>>? Unconventional (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Benjamin LucraftYou could, or you could just leave a note that the prod was removed and that you agree that it shouldn't be deleted. The article really did look at first like a genealogical article about a very non-notable ancestor; there are more and more of these nowadays, but looking harder it seems clear he is a somewhat forgotten, but once more famous person, still known to historians.John Z (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC) |