User talk:Andante1980/Archive Mar 2007

That page was about me.

Since when is being Lanky a bad thing?!

I consider your response to the article to be driven by prejudice and i believe it to be discrimination.

I was not aware of it being about you. When taken from the context of someone writing about someone else, it can be considered offensive. And aside from that, it anyways never should have been on Wikipedia. Case closed. Andante1980 13:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Andante1980! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bexample\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh... Looks like I accidentally clicked the link button and the default text doesn't gel with this little bot. Andante1980 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the page darkhero 17 made was meent to be on my talk page but he didnt use a capital P on Pink thats why he made the page by acsedent :} ♥Eternal Pink-ready for love and grace♥ 11:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is the wrong tag for this article. Its not advertising but is it out of context A1. Please review WP:CSD for further guidence. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you think Albion Swords "reads like an advert" -- I am discussing their products, as is obviously the point on any article on a company. I am not even saying their swords are good (although they are, as evidenced by the impartial reviews linked). dab (𒁳) 09:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as for their notability within their field (which is a different issue), you can review swordforum.com, the main English language "sword enthusiast" forum, and of course again myarmory.com, which is a neutral association of sword collectors. dab (𒁳) 09:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's alright, I was just attempting to give you some background. I still don't understand your objection. It seems obvious that a discussion of a company will include naming of their products. Artix Entertainment, for example (or Microsoft for that matter) isn't tagged as an "advert", although it essentially consists of a list of the company's products. dab (𒁳) 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know -- vigilantism against company-cruft and general spam is important. As it is, they are well-known and respected within their field and well deserve an article, and I took care to include lots of links to third party reviews. I realize this is just a quick stub and needs work. regards, dab (𒁳) 10:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that your sense of humour is not up to standard, the page about Joe Davidson was made in his prescence and was only going to be kept up for a day as a laugh i feel that you are making the world a sadder place

I agree with this!!! Boothy m 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two things, Wikipedia:Sandbox and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Andante1980 12:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andante1980 GET A LIFE the previous unsigned comment was left by Duffin1989 10:16, 21 March 2007

Yawn. Andante1980 07:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you spend so much time on wikipedia, your 27 years old, do you have a family , probaly not, do you have friends, probaly no the previous unsigned comment was left by Duffin1989 06:28, 23 March 2007

Yawn. Andante1980 12:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am confused by your somwhat immature arguments with duffin1989 (no relation i hope). Your comment of Yawn seems to have sparked a dislike for you by this user. Perhaps in future you should reply with a bit less sarcasm.

Duffin2007 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it has nothing to do with me being obnoxious or anything. What else am I going to say to a person who has done nothing, but try to offend me. I really don't care about what he says, honestly it makes me yawn. Nothing to do with being immature. (Actually, i resent such conclusions being drawn.) The user in question had nothing else on his mind, but vandalizing Wikipedia and trying to offend me, from the start. I tried being civil, though perhaps a little blunt. And the only response I get is "GET A LIFE". Should that inspire me to to show anything but total disinterest? (And as an aside, take a look at: User_talk:Duffin1989, you'll see that this user considered Wikipedia more like his personal playground than as anything else. He got blocked for vandalism.) I hope you take the time to think about what I've said here. Now, just as a curiousity, how come you take such interest in this case? Andante1980 05:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to oppose your decision to delete my article, as that story was wholly true and not intended as a personal attack. The woman on whom the story is based agrees to its plot and can verify its accuracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChrisToddMike (talk • contribs) 13:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Listen: I understand you dont beleive that the legend, Ms. Kelsey Prisby, is sitting right next to me, but she is. I have personally measured the volume of her xxxxxx, and, yes, it is deeper than the Mariana (not Marian) Trench. Everything in my article, including the sexual relations in which she engaged, is true. I, Todd Michael III, grandson of the aforementioned Todd Michael, have pictures, documents, and personal writings of all characters involved. You, old bean, have deleted something that deserves, nay, MUST be on Wikipedia. Your disregard for a true piece of Americana is almost blasphemous in nature. I hope that, one day, you find yourself in posession of information that could shape the way people can look at the past, but someone like you, dear sir, deletes it immediatly.

Good day.

While I have never visited Uncyclopedia, I doubt its validity and moral fortitude. I believe that Wikipedia is the proper medium for writing such as Prisby, Kelsey. I understand you may not agree with it, I understand you and your Mormon sensibilities may be challenged by the tawdry and dark tale that I have reported, but you must realize that some things arent all Disney and Lucky Charms. Sometimes things have an edge. Like a knife or... or a machete or something. If anything belongs on Uncycolpedia, it is your xxxxxxxxx. I hate to think of the mustachioed stranger that planted his xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, but maybe you should keep your gob shut. Well grubbed, old mole, well grubbed indeed. PS: The Dutch are a bunch of woodenshoed pussies. ChrisToddMike 13:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, thanks for the good laugh. :-) Andante1980 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i can see that their is other people also complaining about you putting on deletion tags on many articles that might not be finnished or might have fullworthy external links and references. my advice to you is to be more carefull about what you put speedy tags on.--Matrix17 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start accusing me of putting speedy tags on everything, i suggest you take a good look at the comments which are on my talk page. You'll see that it is mostly frustrated vandals, who want to yell at me. So, please slow down a little, before you charge me with such things. Now, as far as your article goes, a single line does not make an article. If possible, try to add at least some reference, that way people like me won't be tempted to take a shot at it? As such, nothing personal. Andante1980 12:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes if you look i have added some info on all of them.;)--Matrix17 12:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the articles, and now there are references. So, I'm not putting the speedy tags back. (Otherwise, I probably would have fired a [[subst:uw-speedy1]]. ;-) ) Oh, and from now I'll let you know if any of your articles appear unreferenced. Andante1980 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't speedy articles for not having references, such articles should go through AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you put a speedy tag on Karen sargsyan? Yes, it was miscapitalized, but this guy received an award from the Armenian president and he's choirmaster to a national theather. Those are claims that invalidate a CSD A7 speedy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put that tag, because there were no clear external references. Plus the phrase "most notable" doesn't exactly inspire faith in the article, many times bands, etc try to claim their notability in that way. Now, in this case, you're right. I'm wrong. Article lives. Honestly, while doing all the tagging of all the crap which gets created all the time, you might mistakenly hit an article which does deserve to stay. So, nothing personal, mistakes happen. Andante1980 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well mistakes happen. I just don't like articles that deserve to stay being deleted. If the deleting admin makes a mistake (that happens too) entries can disappear forever. I'm not sure if you do already, but before tagging I always skim the entire article to see if something could remotely pass as notable before applying a speedy tag. If it does, I take it to AFD instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try to make an educated guess about the worth of an article. It just so happens that i trip up sometimes. Besides, I have deletionist tendencies. Andante1980 13:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing wrong with that, just take your time to make a decision. It's not a race and the more time you take, the less likely you are to make a mistake. You can still see a lot of stuff deleted to sooth your deletionist tendencies and increased accuracy is probably going to make other editors happy. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Will do. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was completly kidding. I knew my topic was going to be deleted. I just decided to have a good time.

As previously stated, well grubbed, old mole, well grubbed.