User talk:Evilclown93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thanks for your support. 2 My RfA 3 Catherine Austin Fitts 4 Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007. 5 Majorly's RfB 6 Old school 7 Question 8 Vanessa Daou Page 9 Peer review for Stanley Cup 10 Vandal

[edit] Thanks for your support.

Dear Evilclown93,

Thank you very much for your kind words and supportive comments on my recent RfA. I've been shot down again, so it won't be happening this time. I hope, though, that I can hear from you again next time around - and there definitely will be a next time.

Best wishes,

-- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 20:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

• Thanks for the support position. However, I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Austin Fitts

Hi,

Just letting you know that I made some comments about your edits to this page over on the Catherine Fitts talk page.

I also withdraw and apolgoize for blaming you for edits you didn't create so much as revert. I'm kinda new here haven't figured it all out yet.

Utunga 23:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majorly's RfB

Hey Evil Clown, thanks for your kind support in my RfB. Sadly, it didn't pass, but I appreciate the support, and kind comments and I do intend to run again eventually. Happy editing! Majorly _{(o rly?)} 03:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old school

glad to see users still doing oldschool reverting. :-) West Brom 4ever 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i beat you in rv-race? ok, i will quit using script for one day :-) talk to you soon West Brom 4ever 23:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

sure there is no need, however, i got slightly nostalgic. cheers, West Brom 4ever 23:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

yes, martinbot is very rude, beating me too. cheers, West Brom 4ever 23:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Am I not allowed to edit my own page? I just got a weird message from you. I am new to wiki so please help.

THank you. 68.249.188.31 00:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)gsingh2300

[edit] Vanessa Daou Page

What's wrong with linking to Vanessa Daou's myspace page? I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not aware if this is something that's considered taboo. I hardly would classify it as spam, however. Screamingdreaming 14:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it's considered something to be avoided. Since this rule seems to have a bit of grey area (in that it's saying normally to be avoided, under what circumstances would it be okay to link there? I would say that maybe the parameters should be whether the artist his/herself is actually a regular presence on their myspace page and said artist is a published one (as in the case of Portishead [1] myspace page. A comparison of Vanessa Daou's and Portishead's respective pages will show that Vanessa obviously has little to do with her page and Porthishead actually updates theirs every now and then. Either way, point taken and no more links to myspace from me. Screamingdreaming 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Stanley Cup

I think it should be moved to a seperate article if there were other events like those, and if it can go more in-depth about it. If there isn't any or can't be expanded, then I think it should stay. But the problem about that is that the article is the Stanley Cup - not strange events in the finals. So I say if it stays the section should link to the NHL seasons in which they occured. --Hasek is the best 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

His last edit said, and I quote "Suck my fuckin dick, cunts". Rather than a week or a month, I hesitated between a month and life. No. A month is entirely reasonable, indeed leniant.--Anthony.bradbury 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)