User talk:Alexius08/Archive 2
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Reverts on User talk:White Glory
You might as well stop reverting User talk:White Glory. I'm watching his contribs. Also, please don't nominate his userpage for speedy deletion unless it contains personal attacks, BLP violations, or copyright violations. Useight (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, user accounts may delete comments on their talk pages if they wish. His removal is questionable by what he replaces it with, but not cause for reverting. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that he replaced his talk page with "This page has been vandalized x times", accusing us at the same time of vandalism. Isn't it uncivil? Alexius08 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- He probably doesn't know the difference between warnings and vandalism. So far, he's new, showed up and vandalized, got warned, and made a couple good edits. He has been treading on thin ice with the content of his vandalism, but he never vandalized after his last warning. Let us watch his contribs. Useight (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that he replaced his talk page with "This page has been vandalized x times", accusing us at the same time of vandalism. Isn't it uncivil? Alexius08 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Schmutz MDPI
Dear Alexius, we are not adding inappropriate links, nor advertisement. We are adding links to freely available scientific literature on selected chemistry topics. Please check before you claim something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmutz MDPI (talk • contribs) 08:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Alexius08 don't you have anything better to do, than deleting links?! If you at least knew some things about this articles and the topics they treat and you could give a good reason why the links are inappropriate, I could understand. But like this you just deny useful (and open access) information to interested scientists and students. Stop it please. We are both wasting our time with adding or removing links, but the difference between you and me is, that I gain money while doing that and you don't :-)!--Schmutz MDPI (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
COURTNEY
Dear who ever you are, i am not vanderlising anything, im just adding a few adjustments . if you need to say anything say it! AND STOP DELETING MY POST THING IT IS TRUE!
COURTNEY IS A FAMOUS SINGER FROM THE USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.199.5 (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Socks?
Oldhobo/Busybankermolly. You want to report to WP:SSP? What twits. Prince of Canada t | c 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend that a request for comment for user conduct be filed against the user in question as two editors has tried to resolve the blatant misunderstanding and failed. I am making the comment now so I don't forget later, as the RfC process is currently protected, so no one as of right now can file an RfC. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- The RfC process is not currently protected. Can I create a subpage for it? Alexius08 (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- By all means. I can contribute to the RfC when I can. (I meant to initiate one , but my schedule has been sporadic as of late.) MuZemike (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I smell dirty socks here, which I'm sure you have, as well. Have you reported the three to WP:SSP? If you haven't initiated the RfC yet, do this first and see what comes up, as the attitudes and editing styles are very much the same. MuZemike (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have just opened a sockpuppetry case here. You can participate on gathering evidences. Alexius08 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- They deny the accusations. I would file a request for checkuser, but the page is also currently full-protected; we'd have to wait until an admin unprotects the page to file one. (No rush - we have ten days to start one.) MuZemike (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like that RfC won't be necessary, as the checkuser case confirms the socking. MuZemike (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was also going to request creation protection, but someone (not related to the editors in question) has requested userfication, so if a better article can result (as suggested ever so eloquently in the AfD, he might become notable enough for inclusion, just maybe not right now), that would be great. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- They deny the accusations. I would file a request for checkuser, but the page is also currently full-protected; we'd have to wait until an admin unprotects the page to file one. (No rush - we have ten days to start one.) MuZemike (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have just opened a sockpuppetry case here. You can participate on gathering evidences. Alexius08 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I smell dirty socks here, which I'm sure you have, as well. Have you reported the three to WP:SSP? If you haven't initiated the RfC yet, do this first and see what comes up, as the attitudes and editing styles are very much the same. MuZemike (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- By all means. I can contribute to the RfC when I can. (I meant to initiate one , but my schedule has been sporadic as of late.) MuZemike (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Harvard - Sleep
You recently removed an external link to Harvard's info site. I think that site should be considered quite reliable, and it contains much more detail than there is space for in the article itself. Although I didn't add that link in the first place, I'll put it back in now. --Hordaland (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Kaeng Chan
I declined this CSD request on very thin reasoning; notability was weakly asserted by the phrase "he is memorable..." I don't think that notability is established in the article, but it was asserted, which is enough to avoid CSD. I have no problem with bringing it to either WP:PROD or WP:AFD. It is possible, however, that the subject actually is notable and the article could be improved. Frank | talk 14:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet Issue
I posted this on two other talk pages, but I think it should be on yours too:
Alright, I've honestly had enough of all this Wikipedia BS. I have assumed good faith. I have given you all a chance. If you read the talk page on this case, Alexius08 is equally as guilty of not "assuming good faith". Alexius08 just went in and on over irrelevant matter, and was COMPLETELY biased against all of the defendants. Whoever Alexius08 is, they gave us no leniency because they just accused us of everything under the sun with little or no ACTUAL RELEVANT supporting evidence. "Assume good faith"... yeah right! So just to expedite this, I'm going to say some RELEVANT stuff. Wikipedia is a useless corrupted community full of partisan views, and hypocrisy among elitist leaders (a.k.a bullies). Now I know why those articles and blogs about you guys were written. In fact, I'm going to go write one myself, and just to let all of you know, I practically hold the world.
I thought this discussion was over anyways when the article got deleted. Why do you all keep perpetuating this?
--Rrindie126 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the edits I made to Mammoth (magazine) and Paper Sky (magazine). If an article's subject is notable, it is better to edit it to remove style problems than to try to delete it. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Links
Can I ask you what is wrong with these links I posted? They are used throughout Marvel Comics articles. 67.173.11.90 (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding me. I saw myself that there's nothing wrong with the link. You can freely restore the link. Alexius08 (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've noticed lately that if you click on the link to Huggle it's recommended not to use it anymore... 67.173.11.90 (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Umm... is it OK to post them or not? 67.173.11.90 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aargh... I forgot! Now, go on and restore them. I've changed my settings so that I cannot revert your edits. Alexius08 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - I'm starting to see why they're recommending not to use it anymore - runaway bot! ;) 67.173.11.90 (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm done and going to bed anyway, like I should have a while ago - good night and have a good one. :) 67.173.11.90 (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - I'm starting to see why they're recommending not to use it anymore - runaway bot! ;) 67.173.11.90 (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aargh... I forgot! Now, go on and restore them. I've changed my settings so that I cannot revert your edits. Alexius08 (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask what is wrong with the link to the former Pontypridd player, Richard Parks? All former players of Pontypridd Rugby Football Club have an archived playing profile on said team's website. I cannot fathom your decision to remove said link. --Monkeynuts2008 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Your userpage
By looking at your user page I got the impression you are somewhat confused, or perhaps someone vandalized your page again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdorsch (talk • contribs) 06:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
JINX
The article does not qualify for speedy deletion under G11- note that criterion states "...that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." If you can find a specific statement that advocates purchasing from Jinx, makes any statement about Jinx wares other than their existence and style, or says anything negative about a competitor, please, point it out. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:Uw-delete1
It appears your recent edit to Template:Uw-delete1 caused a couple problems. I have reverted your edit for now because I'm not sure how to fix it. swaq 17:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thanks for the revert on my user page. The anon is a serial vandal and stalker who simply will not give up. I appreciate your efforts. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Revert conflict on urbanization ?
Hi there
I happened to notice the edit history. It looks like both you and User:DoubleBlue used Huggle to revert some partial blanking at the same time, with the effect that the reverts were themselves reverted, and the page left as partially blanked - if that makes sense.
I wonder if this indicates a problem with your version of Huggle? I notice on its page there is a notice "MEDIAWIKI CHANGES/BUGS HAVE BROKEN THE LATEST VERSION OF HUGGLE. USE AN OLDER VERSION. THANKS."
Just to alert you to this. --Cedderstk 07:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Links to pollsters
I'm not promoting pollster or a candidate. I'm just adding links that other candidates, or sections of the article have. Please be more careful with your criticism. I'm not new to wikipedia, I just didn't sign into my account. I now signed into my account. I did nothing wrong please look at the actual page and you can see it's consistent with prior changes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.156.165 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 October 2008
Edits on Wireless Sensor Network
Hi there,
You just delete one contribution to the external links of Wireless Sensor Network, wsn-security.info. While my edition can be perceived like link advertising, I had a couple of reasons to include such link (BTW, I am not the owner of that page):
- Sensor network security is an important research area of sensor networks which is not very considered within the article (Hm... maybe I can add a couple of things to the article itself. That sounds like a good idea :-) ).
- There are no links in the wiki article that can help a potential reader to learn more about security-related issues in wireless sensor networks. Besides, that link is similar to SensorNetBib in the sense that provides an updated list of updated research in that area.
I'll not revert your changes - I am no editor of the wikipedia and I do not have clear what is right or what is wrong (What should be and what shouldn't be ;-) ). Still, wanted to discuss with you about this issue :-).
Rrc2soft (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
re: humourous vs humorous
You recently changed the spelling of this word on Military slang. The change was just reverted but for the wrong reason. (I'll be leaving a note on the other user's page as well.) Please do not randomly change spellings from American English to British English and back. Both are correct and either may be appropriate depending on the context. The Manual of Style has more on which spelling is appropriate when. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Links on Derek Bentley
Utter nonsense. What do you know? It was ONE link. It was to a site with LOTS of information about this person. You have something against him? He's fairly dead, isn't he? The link contained pictures, photographs, and links to further resources maintained by his family.
Stop being such an arrogant child.
And put the bloody link back. Now. Prat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.50.109.209 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think that you removed a link to IMDB through that way. Alexius08 (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
With regards to your reverting here, please be sure in future to fully check any content when an IP address blanks an entire article with edit summaries like "Taken down because of misuse by others"; as noted at this section (which, per this ruling, applies to any instance of information about a living person, whether it is in a BLP or not). I have someone with a very good cause of action for defamation of character trying to get details about who added/readded this content, and while I won't give them anything beyond what they can immediately see from the history without a court order, one could certainly argue that your readdition of the possible defamatory content on four different occasions makes you partially liable; the tort of defamation is strict liability. The moral of the story is obviously to be a tad more cautious when reverting. Regards, Daniel (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank You!
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For your assistance in keeping USS New Jersey (BB-62) vandal free while the article was up on the mainpage I herby award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks!
Thank you for the Barnstar. Glad to be of help. Pinkadelica Say it... 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. I declined the speedy on this. The name of the article was incorrect, but a quick Google on the correct name (now moved) seems to indicate a fairly authorative author. Pedro : Chat 08:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Your AfD
Hi Alexius. Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transnationality Index. A couple of us have greatly improved the article since you nominated it for deletion. Thanks. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
worlds largest round barn
Thank you for deleting something I had worked so hard to create. I was not finished and had to rest for the night. I had more information to build it on and then you came along and deleted it. I didn't even get a chance to put a hangon tag with it. You are a poor administrator, and if you delete something of mine again without reasoning why it should be deleted, I will report you for administrative vandalism.Keystoneridin (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
McTell
You have reverted an edit which updates out-of-date information and gives further, up-to-date, information. An edit, what is more, that the subject of the article requested. Please do not meddle in areas you are not well-informed about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.117.229 (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
McTell (2)
The text below has been posted on the Talk page of the Ralph McTell article.
I removed the link to a long-defunct website because its inclusion makes the article inaccurate; and because it is not encyclopedic.
I added a link to the current principle fan website (which, incidentally, is approved by the subject of the article). This change was reverted by a well-meaning user who, one assumes, is not particularly well informed about the subject of the article.
None of the material I have submitted (which, as it happens, is the major part of this article) violates any copyrights; nor does the content of the fan site I have linked to. When I greatly expanded the original stub (username AndyF):
a) I irrevocably released my contribution under the terms of the GFDL;
b) I was certain that none of the content violated copyright; and
c) I had, and have, extensive knowledge of the subject.
So it is irritating when content - such as the link to a defunct websites - is not only added but is reverted when corrected.
Regarding my recent addition that mentions a Ralph McTell concert in Birmingham and cites a press release, I might as easily have cited the advertisements which have appeared in Mojo magazine. This double-header concert is a fact - a quick look at Birmingham Town Hall's website will confirm this. I added the citation because it was available, not because the content needs it - the fact of the Birmingham concert is readily verifiable, it is very unlikely to be challenged, it is not controversial.
Verification and citation are important if Wikipedia is to avoid accusations of inaccuracy. But citation can be taken to ridiculous extremes. IMO, we don't need to give citations for widely-advertised public events (although in this case I had a press release to hand) and we should not unecessarily revert corrections when we have insufficient knowledge.
AndyF, 18 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.21.76 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Go back and look at the page now and tell me why my edit was destructive. The page has been vandalized you wally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.183.80.133 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 October 2008
Featured sound
Your Featured sound candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured sound status, Image:Mozart_-_Eine_kleine_Nachtmusik_-_1._Allegro.ogg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another sound, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Thanks! I hope we'll see more of you there =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: User:FrancisLightHouse's suspected sockpuppetry
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
that's just... odd
Not sure what you were trying to accomplish [1] with this edit, but I have undone it. As a vandalism fighter, you should know that blanking a page is cosidered vandalism, so I am guessing it was some sort of mistake. Anyway, there it is. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Please go ahead and speedy delete this. The page is nowhere near ready to go live yet (the redlink is just a placeholder), and will likely be re-named when the proper name for the soccer team is announced anyway. Thanks. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Re.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
August 1, 2003
I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at this deletion discussion. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: November 2008
I removed it because the article was complete nonsense. Claimgoal 10:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Next time, please tag pages you perceive as nonsense with {{db-nonsense}}. Thank you. Alexius08 (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
I am writing to imform you that I am sorry about the resent vandelism on the pages, I have just found out that my friend, who's name will not be mentioned at this time, was indeed using my account on my computer from school, this won't happen again, thank you for your time. From User:JazMc —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
Do not rv sandbox pages.
I love how you send me {{automated warning}}<nowiki>s, even when my edits are in the sandbox. Here is the pathetic error you made. <small> crap, wont show up, view it at http://bayimg.com/image/ballfaabp</small> . In the future, avoid using Huggle.---- Monkeynuts2008 (talk), 11:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
speedy deletion of WorldMate
Please let me know what I need to do to make the WorldMate entry acceptable to your guidelines. WorldMate is an established company, like the tens of thousands of other companies listed in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andykatz22 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Why delete links to blogs from the political party in question, I am assuming that you did not even look at the links before canning them, Why would anyone be so obtuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.254.45 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Reverts on Seoul Foreign School
- Please review your reversion. I just removed possibly libelous charges out of there. Next time, please take care while reverting. Alexius08 (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Messages
Dear Alexius, I am sorry for having editing all your stuff.. How do I contact you? Is this where I should write my messages?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.77.248 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes is it, but please a) create a new section for messages, b) sign them with your signature. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please add a new message on the bottom of the talk page. Alexius08 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Also please add a header if you are starting a new thread, like ==This==. Alexius08 (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETEING MY STUFF?!? IS IT CUZ IM BLACK?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.77.248 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
AfC news
Dear AfC participant,
- Msgj and Tnxman307 are organising the AfC challenge! It's a little competition to help improve some of the articles created through AfC and we are hoping that everyone will get involved. For level 1, you just need to bring a stub up to Start-class. Level 2 is improving a Start-class article to C-class. And so on. To get involved or for more information please see the competition page.
- Those of you who haven't reviewed an article recently might not have noticed the new process that was implemented this year. Reviewing articles is now more enjoyable than ever :) You might like to give it a try. All articles waiting for review are in Category:Pending Afc requests. (Please read the updated instructions.)
- Please consider adding {{AFC status}} to your userpage to keep track of the number of articles waiting for review. At the time of writing we are officially backlogged, so help is needed!
- There is currently a proposal to bring the Images for upload process under the umbrella of WikiProject Articles for creation. The rationale is that both processes are designed to allow unregistered users to take part more fully in Wikipedia, and partipants in each process can probably help each other.
If you no longer wish to receive messages from WikiProject Articles for creation, please remove your name from this list. Thank you.
Control of Wikipedia
I have received a message: "Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you".
I am extremely annoyed on how things are run here. Its run on a bully system where you have to be in the circle to be noted on Wikipedia.
Firstly, Wikipedia is a collection of links. If you look into Dinosaurs you will see that its run like a gang turf with a close group of paleontologists which run their own blind theories. I spent about two years creating a world class Dinosaur information site. Now it sits, at least, at the top 20th site online in the world. The people, typically between 10 and 20yrs old, depend on my site to learn may facts on dinosaurs. Its been 2 years that wikipedia's collection of links has rejected my site at Dinosaur Facts. Why is this? Because Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If not then take a look at Mobygames. They not only got their own Wikipedia page Here but the external link count in Wikipedia is well over 100. They are spammed all over wikipedia.
This goes the same for dinodata.org, miniclips.com, enchantedlearning.com, and 1000's more. All of these sites are getting their major share of a collection of links, and not because of their quality to the topic. Its because they are "in the circle" of Google.
How about when I published the lawsuit on Shawn Hogan regarding all of the information about his virus infecting 1000's of users' computers in order to fake Ebay hits. Of course you guys erased that too because Shawn hogan is part of your team to protect. The information was on the News on TV........
Maybe one day I'll be #1 one day(doubt it because I have not been worth anything my whole life), and once I do, Wikipedia will love it.
Wikipedia is obviously corrupt SEO SERP hogs who only accept majorly popular sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrAveTzT (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, we are accepting links from popular sites since they are reliable sources, but please, stop abusing Wikipedia for advertising. We are not the yellow pages. We are not a web directory for everyone to dump their links on.
- You are accusing us of corruption. However, due to the open nature of this project, anyone could easily oppose and oust the bribed editor. If you are here to promote someone, please stop. Alexius08 (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Explanation
Could you please explain this edit to me? Thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Popular sites
Those popular sites are not reliable sources. They are Just in the chain of favoritism due to places like wikipedia enrolling them.
I do blame the administration for corruption becuase of rules such as "If you are here to promote, then stop", then the following is going on.
Dinodata's links in wikipedia:
They are actually in 99% percent of all dinosaur specified wiki pages. Their information and my sites information are a totally different style so there is no better or worse. There info is geared to classifications, species family, discoveres, scientific, and mine is more body features, location, interesting information on only that dinosaur.
But they are in. If they are reliable the only reason for this is becuase of large groups of internet mafia rising them like wikipedia.
Your rules shouldn't be geared for certain people. It should be absolutely the same. The whole world is making this site for you greedy webmasters and this is how you setup this site now with this power?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your great site will allow you to erase this anyway. That's the good thing about wikipedia for you guys. You can throw away everyone and keep your own. If you don't want to be honest and shut out Everyone and not just go after certain people, then go can just go to hell.
I'm done with trying to convince you crooks at wikipedia. One day people will stop bothering to give free information and you'll all be forced to start running things honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrAveTzT (talk • contribs) 01:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Fox Theta Delta
Can you please provide a reference on the List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines on Fox Theta Delta's existance at Michigan State University in 1901? The Michigan State University archivist has currently not located anything.Naraht (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Mind your own beeswax
STAY OUT OF MY CONVERSATION WITH BAREK, IT DOESN'T INVOLVE YOU!! WeatherVanesNorth (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
GO BACK TO COLLEGE AND KEEP YOUR NOSEY WHERE IT BELONGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherVanesNorth (talk • contribs) 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
DEAL
Don't ban me. I'll stop making fake articles if you feature this link on your messages. This is the link Wikipedia's most know-it-all article lover —Preceding unsigned comment added by 711joel (talk • contribs) 08:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by creating fake articles and disturbing order, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. Alexius08 (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Saraswats
dude, in the list of saraswats article politics has been mentioned twice with two separate lists with mostly the same people so i just merged the lists!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.165.96 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete my modification of "UPnP AV MediaServers" adding the LLINK media server? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.163 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
deletion of Kidslinked.com
Alexius08, kindly advise as to what we are lacking for the kidslinked.com post. This company won a top tier innovation award last week out of thousands of applicants. The company has several articles in newspapers and has been featured on FOX, NBC, and CBS news. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.54.1 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)