User talk:Fg1234567892000

'''Hello. If you are at this page, you are probably disgruntled or want to leave me a message pertaining to my editing. I appreciate any and all comments left here. Just leave all of your complaints here and I will respond as quickly as possible.'''

You are cool
Hello, fg1234567892000. I am on this page to tell you how awesome you are, not to complain about stuff. I just wanted to say that you are cool. Love, purplespottedzebra.

Flag Desecration Amendment
Thank you for experimenting with the page Flag Desecration Amendment on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me.  (James McNally)   (talkpage)   21:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page
I quote "it is contreversial...screw you james"

I fear you have confused me with someone else. I've never edited any pages on flag desecration or had any correspondence with you, whoever you are. My name isn't even James. Please check who's talk page you are posting on in future, especially when making abusive posts. Do it again and you'll be reported. ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 09:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Flag Desecration Amendment page - revert
Dear Fg1234567892000,

It was I who reverted your edit to the flag desecration amendment. This is because the text you added was as follows:


 * , and so that President Bush may control our lives forever and always.Heil Gabe!'',

After the factually correct entry:


 * The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Whatever we may feel about the amendment (i think it's an insult to your constitution), Wiki must attempt to hold a NPOV (neutral point of view), and to be factually correct. That's why I reverted it. Please don't add irrelevant text, or remove large portions of arguments you disagree with (ie the section on arguments against the amentment - you replaced the 1st paragraph with No one opposes this amendment.

I've rolled back the article again, to the version by User:Wvoutlaw2002, which contains the appropriate argument. -- (James McNally)   (talkpage)  13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion warnings
A tag has been placed on Gerst, Forrest J., 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. Jeodesic 17:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Forrest J. Gerst, 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. Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote, "Upon review of Wikipeida's notability guidelines, I realize my error in attempting to write an autobiography. However, it does state that a neutral article can be written if it is "...a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors. I feel that this can be achieved by having neutral, unbias people interview me and colaborate together to form a well-crafted article about me. I in no way wish to jepordize the accuracy of the article and have always tried my best to give a article that is short and to the point. No, I am not promoting myself; no, I am not trying to promote any of my extracirricular activites. I am only wishing to post information about me on a credible and well-established website. In no way I feel that I should be counted out from Wikipedia and I feel that I deserve and article just as much as the next guy. I eagerly await discussion on this issue and am more than willing to provied evidence of my notability."


 * While it's admirable that you want to contribute to Wikipedia by providing us with your autobiography, I don't see the evidence of notability. Third-party sources must be reliable, such as the New York Times. I don't see that having friends of yours interview you qualifies, since they are not established reporters. Does that make sense? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lks to n-n bio
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. And be sure not to miss Biographical Notability. --Jerzy•t 17:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Re your response at User talk:Jerzy, no offense was intended, and in fact the Test template and the rest of its family are designed as means of implementing WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and other policies, without having to ignore obviously unsuitable contributions.
 * On the other hand, the real relevance of your invoking your continued seriousness is primarily in suggesting that i should direct you again to WP:BIO, and now also to WP:3RR. Nor does your apparent sensitivity relieve me of the responsibility to at least ensure that you know that the appropriate routine response to your restoration of that entry is as follows:
 * Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
 * and that your colleagues (not to exclude myself) will require your responsiveness to its general thrust.
 * BTW, please review your own wording, to wit:
 * I would like to inform you that I am very serious in my attempts to create a biograpy concerning myself and should you delete anything in the future that you are more succinct with me and simply inform me that my addition has been deleted.
 * which is confusing thru its disregard for syntax. I commend to you the importance of crystal-clear expression of what it is one is trying to be assertive abt. I'll assume your literal implication, that you
 * [have] inform[ed] me that ... [i am] more succinct with [you] and simply inform [you] that [your] addition has been deleted.
 * reflects just careless composition; i trust you will confirm this by avoiding, in the future, ambiguities that could (especially on the part of one who undertakes competitive rhetoric) reasonably justify construing a deliberate intent to suggest aggressive or otherwise presumptuous postures, without your taking the responsibility for having stated them.
 * --Jerzy•t 18:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Jerzy•t 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC) You've written on my talk:
 * You recently deleted a link referring to my name and possible biography.I was slightly offended in the verbage you used in calling my editing attempts an "experiment" and that my "test worked". I would like to inform you that I am very serious in my attempts to create a biograpy concerning myself and should you delete anything in the future that you are more succinct with me and simply inform me that my addition has been deleted. Thank you.--Fg1234567892000 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * March 28, 2007--folowup
 * Your accusations of "vandallism" are compleatly unfounded. I am in no way intending to undermine Wikipedia's validity and find that your claims are compleatly invalid. I can see your point of view if say, maybe I deleted all of an article, but come now--vandallism? You need to reconsider my notability and worthiness--I of all people need to be on Wikipeda. I don't ask for fame or fortune. I don't ask for anything I am involved in to receive any promotion or attention. All I ask for is to be a part of the website.--Fg1234567892000 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion re founded or unfounded is unpersuasive. You've been told by several editors apparently more experienced than yourself that your proposed autobio is unsuitable, and persistance in defiance of that advice would be reckless and uncooperative enough that any distinction between your behavior and vandalism would be pointless hairsplitting, which would not interfere with your being blocked from editing. --Jerzy•t 21:07 & 21:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You wrote me:
 * April 2--¶
 * Although you may continue to assert your opinion of my work as "vandallism", in my opinion, it is not. However, this is only an opinion and I am sure that many would argue against me. However, I would like to clarify the fact that I do not wish to have an autobiography written--I would like a biograhpy. I am forced to attempt an autobiograhy simply because it's people and administrators, not unlke yourself, who feel that I am not good enough for Wikipedia. I am more than noteworthy, and intend to pursue more acceptable means of meeting my goal. I understand that vandallism is wrong, however, I must say again that I was driven to it by people who constantly barrate me and continously delete any attempt I make at modifying the site. The only reason I continue my crusade is because I want my voice to be heard and I don't want to be put off like some uneducated dumbo who doesn't know what he's doing. I thank you for your constant feedback and critisism, however negitive it may be at times, and I want you to know that I try my hardest to do the best I can.

_ _ Point taken re autobio vs. bio. And i think that by now you grasp that pursuing an autobio as means to get a bio will not be tolerated. _ _ I hope you'll also realize that WP puts no value on anyone's voice being heard; the signing of discussions but not articles should suggest to you the degree to which the contributions are significant and the contributors are not. We might well say "CAUTION: This is a low-ego site." --Jerzy•t 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks, and i look forward to the results of your determination if you start applying it to any of the many areas that offer challenges, short and long, to active minds. --Jerzy•t 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Queen album covers
I agree that the album covers should be kept to a minimum, after a consensus of which ones to keep. I personally think there should be more pictures of the band. At one point there were, but they were removed in favor of squeezing every album cover onto the page. Basically, I vote for keeping the Smile picture, and adding some additional (fair use/free) pictures of the four, as well as keeping one of two more notable albums - maybe A Night at the Opera and The Game. – Zone46 20:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Queen WikiProject
Hello, I am leaving you this message as part of a personal effort to revive the Queen WikiProject of which you are listed as a participant. If you are not interested in committing yourself to contributing to Queen related articles please go about removing yourself from the participants list on the project page. On the other hand if you are interested in the project and do wish to contribute, I encourage you to head over to the project's talk page to work towards outstanding tasks and share ideas on how Queen-related articles may be improved.

Thanks for reading this, and I look forward to your response. Such a legendary group deserves to be honoured with quality articles on Wikipedia and it is a great shame such a project has gone inactive.

 The Stig  20:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)