User talk:2nd Piston Honda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, 2nd Piston Honda, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 11:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Talk:George W. Bush

Please refrain from personal attacks while on Wikipedia. Calling other contributors feebleminded is a personal attack, and is not tolerated. Enjoy editing, but please try to remain civil. You'll find it helps others relate to you, and will in the end benefit the project more, and make your time here more enjoyable. Thanks, Ec5618 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo 2 and WP:EL

Here's the reason. The stated "mission" of the site is to be a forum. From WP:EL 1.1.4: Articles with multiple points of view should contain external links providing counter points. I'm sorry, but Halo 2 is not Palestine, George W. Bush, or Evolution. From 1.2.3: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." This halo2sucks.com doesn't fall under that. From 1.3.1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose" should not be included. It doesn't provide any more information than is found in the article. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 15:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Just wanted to say, nice work with the SSPX article. Good defense.C3H5N3O92010 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitchens

I saw your revert of the astonishingly moronic edits 72.195.144.113 made to the Hitchens article. This user needs a very serious vandalism warning placed on his talk page, and it would be best, it seems to be, that you do so given the fact that you reverted his vandalism. This guy is a menace, and he needs to be put on notice that his activities will not be tolerated. Thanks. ---Charles 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservatism

Speak now or forever shut up, thereabouts. | Norwood's edits -Scribner 11:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment request

You have twice reverted me on Roman Catholic Church, and even specifically said "see talk", yet you have not made any comments concerning the edit. I'd appreciate justifiation for your rash reverts. See the discussion here. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen your comments concerning the new first sentence discussion (which I haven't introduced to the main article yet). Yesterday, I went to talk to propose a change to the last paragraph of the opening. I got support from lostcaesar, and some off topic comments from Vaq. After waiting 24 hours, I introduced the paragraph to the article. You reverted it, saying it talks too much about the pope (even though the current wording talks about the pope). I then took your comments to heart, and edited again, preserving more of the current content. You reverted that saying i don't get the point of your edit. See talk page. However, you didn't comment on the talk page about this edit, and it almost appears to me as if you haven't even read the initial proposal and discussion on talk. This is why I was confused and came to your talk page asking you to address the issues surrounding your reverts. Maybe I am trying to do too much at once in the article and it is getting confusing, but I feel the last paragraph proposal, and the first sentence proposal are two seperate issues.--Andrew c 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You only want what YOU feel is important to be added? You must be G.W.'s friend.

This editor does not feel that ALL the facts should be present in articles.

Does that sound like a smart editor?

(cur) (last) 18:10, 1 August 2006 2nd Piston Honda (Talk | contribs) (so ALL facts belong in the article?) (cur) (last) 18:07, 1 August 2006 Playnine9 (Talk | contribs) m (it is a FACT, that's why it belongs. Explain to me why it DOESN'T belong.)

YES, ALL OF THE FACTS BELONG, YOU MORON!

Oh, and Hondas are slow. --- Playnine9 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So you believe ALL facts belong in the article. Including what bush had for breakfast last thursday, or what the wing speed of a hummingbird is. What a moron. 2nd Piston Honda 18:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious? The wing speed of a hummingbird has NOTHING to do with George Bush! The fact that you said that is pure idiocy! Also, what Bush has for breakfast(remember, we start names with UPPER CASE) has nothing to do with anything. However, a quote that he made in a public speech with the American people is VERY relevant!
You clearly have no brain. Are you GW's friend or something? --- Playnine9 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of your user page!!!

Hi. I caught that User:Playnine9 decided to vandalize your user page, here, here, here, and here. I replaced it with my welcome message I give to new users to encourage them to utilize their user page. Thought you should know. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. He got himself banned for attacking. I hope calms down when he's back. - CobaltBlueTony 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

No big deal, but I don't like the way you are reverting in the United States article. The differences are very subtle, ones of aesthetics more than substance, so it isn't worth edit-warring over. But, for what its worth, three editors have expressed a preference for the version other than the one you revert to. This is not good wikiquette. I won't revert it again; really, it doesn't matter all that much. But I would gently suggest that it is better to thrash out such matters in the talk page. Thanks --Guinnog 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove content from Wikipedia. --Guinnog 17:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's over

warning-war blanked

Next time you get involved in a conflict over incivility and personal attacks, call in Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard for a 3rd person to start mediating immediately. Issuing multiple warnings yourself tends to make things worse. Thanks for your patience. --  Netsnipe  ►  21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved your discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Duke53_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_2nd_Piston_Honda_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. WP:AIV is a place for obvious cases of vandalism that can't be disputed, not for long discussions.--Konstable 00:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you help?

There's a Request for Comment at Talk:Opus Dei.

After going through the process which led up to mediation (here), a mediation that resolved that the majority POV is the view of experts such as John Allen, Jr. and Benedict XVI, the main opponent of the article replaced the old article with his own personal version, and then asked for an Request for Comment.

Kindly give your comment. Please. :) Thanks and God bless. Arturo Cruz 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/n/d/User_talk%7E2nd_Piston_Honda_4f29.html"