User talk:Callmemrshowoff

A tag has been placed on Thomas baudier, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Finngall  talk  01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Same with Jacobus koomen. Please read WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 01:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on Mr. Koomen was deleted because it did not assert that he was notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of United States
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Orange Mike 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What edit was vandalism? The only edit I see is this one removing "Officially the Federation of the United States of America", which I myself was not familiar with as an official name either. I'm not sure whether it's correct or not, but I'm not sure that it's "adding nonsense to Wikipedia" or warrants a level 3 warning. Can you clarify? Leebo T / C  15:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Take a closer look at the edit. He inserted that language, not deleted it. I'm a graduate student in history, specializing in U.S. history, with a minor in political science. "Nonsense" is a polite word for that bogus string of completely fictitious words (which weren't even punctuated properly). I am not sure if this was just vandalism, or if he was trying to make some sort of bizarre ideological claim based on a rewrite of 220 years of Constitutional history. -- Orange Mike 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, you're right, it was his edit summary which threw me off. When I read the edit summary, I somehow saw it as removing that line (which I had noticed earlier yesterday, but thought it had been there longer). My mistake. Leebo T / C  15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)