User talk:Excalibursword

"Ethereal"
Actually, my interest in that area was mainly confined to resisting the efforts of a somewhat strange person who kept insisting that the "Eidolon (apparition)" article was mainly occult in nature, when it was self-evidently not mainly occult in nature... AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, thanks anyway. If you change your mind be welcome over there, besides if you know someone which can help, please invite him to stop by there. Regards, Excalibursword (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Etiquette
As you're aware, I filed an AFD for the Ethereal beings article to help determine what should be done with it. You should refrain from making ad hominem remarks. If the other editor attacks you, this will cast them in a poor light. Looking for 'dirt' doesn't result in anything constructive, and experienced editors often do their own searches to properly assess comments.

Also, the rating and importance an article receives by assessors has no bearing on whether the article is to be kept. Rather, it is thought that if the topic is of importance, this will be inherently recognized at the AFD.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me (here, or on my talk page).Smallman12q (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don´t agree I have made any ad hominem remarks. I think it is fair to all editors be aware that certain user, who by the way into that Afd has rants aggressively spread all over manifestos there, has a history of edits marked by biased disruption (there and elsewhere) and even block, such as those recorded in the labelled "Noticeboard per user with strange and hostile conduct." Besides, is civil and legal in an Afd, a user ranting every editor against his pov? Shouldn’t this be forbidden? Just asking, I really don’t know.
 * Nevertheless I do respect your experience in these matters, I ask apologies for my mistake, and heartfully thank you for your advice. I will strictly follow it. Thanks again, all best. Excalibursword (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethereal being
I posted a message on Jimbo's talk page at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales so there will be some more folks who'll leave comments at the AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Ethereal being
New comment(s). Please respond. -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder
Thanks for taking the time to comment. The remark "ultimately we are here to improve Wikipedia not to restrain it" conveys a viewpoint that needs more promotion. It gets too often lost when the focus goes towards the triva of WP policy details. Cheers, -- Zac  Δ talk! 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I can wonder very well your feelings, Zac. Your article is interesting and notable; if it continues getting good sources, obviously it will be even better and thus definitely settled in its own room. Keep going. Excalibursword (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Excalibursword/Ethereal being
User:Excalibursword/Ethereal being, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Excalibursword/Ethereal being and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Excalibursword/Ethereal being during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)