User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2006/09

(Untitled)
I don't really see how you can say the edits I made to custard are 'nonsense.' The notable persons I mentioned who are fans of custard have had their fondness for the treat documented in the public record. I'd be more than happy to direct you to a text by Catherine the Great to Voltaire, for instance, in which the queen mentions a dish of "eggs and sugar." If you're more of an expert on custard than I am, I challenge you to prove it. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you left my epicurean edits to themselves. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.17.91 (talk • contribs) 07:38, September 2, 2006
 * This is definitely the funniest thing I have read in the month of September, so far. Great stuff.  I feel bad for you, King of Hearts.  -- MyWikiBiz 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

:)
I really like this page. It is nicely organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.29.236 (talk • contribs) 20:01, September 2, 2006

Pon and Zi undeletion
I understand the original reason for deletion, but my suggestion and argument is that the original article didn't contain completely accurate or complete information, and shouldn't have been listed as a webcomic at all. I've made a more detailed explanation here: Talk:Pon_And_Zi (with relevant reference links). Just to be clear I'm not spamming, I'm letting you know that I'm also leaving this exact same message with Adashiel, another admin involved in the Pon And Zi deletion.

-- 68.79.49.40 10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Existential Analysis
hi. please remove protection status, since this could be a serious article linked from other sources. thank you. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 11:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Sanchez
You recently deleted this article, along with a fairly long history, with the given reason of "nonsense". I was about to restore the page, as I assumed the deletion had been a mistake, but in case there was a good reason that I don't know about (and to avoid wheel-warring, etc.) I thought I'd better check in with you first. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering why the article was deleted. Must have been speedied; it was on my watchlist and was not prodded nor can I find an AfD discussion for it. If it was a CSD, could we please restore it and (if you still wish it deleted) list it on AfD instead?  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It has survived two three AFDs already, as can be seen from the talk page, and I can see no reason at all for a speedy. I'm undeleting it. — sjorford++ 18:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Message from Angiolo77
You are deleting, every time the site www.aboutmilan.com

It's a non sense or you have an interest in deleting it.

The fact is that the site is an informative site with a very small percentage of commercial.

If you use the same "weight" you should delete these sites as well:

Maps.....

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=45.4636&lon=9.1884&scale=10000&icon=x

It shows banners offering commercial services in the HOME PAGE

http://www.globalguide.org/?lat=45.4636&long=9.1884&zoom=5&name=Milan&wiki=0&title=Milan

it shows google adsense everywhere and in the HOME PAGE

Is Wikipedia going to be as Dmoz where few SEO monopolizes everything?

When a site offers excellent content, unique content, it should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angiolo77 (talk • contribs)

Deletion and protection of page on Paul Best
Why did you delete this page please?

Did it relate to the Unitarian Paul Best? I'm wanting to use the link if poss. Johnbibby 20:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your unblocking
You shouldn't have unblocked. As Mackensen put it, that is a hive of scum and villainy. The unblock request on unblock-l was simply the vandals fooling you into unblocking them. I just got a request on my talk page from a supposed Blue Yonder ISP employee who requests that three of their IP addresses that just so happen to be major sources of vandalism shouldn't be unblocked because they are "dynamic" and are causing collateral damage. Don't be fooled by these lies. Those IP addresses are persistent sources of vandalism from the same people over long periods of time, and any attempt to get them unblocked is just social engineering at work. -- Cyde Weys 17:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I should be allowed to edit my own page
But even if that's not the case, nothing I did to the O'Reilly page can be fairly characterized as vandalism. That's just pure bullshit. Check out what I did--that ain't vandlaism. The guy who gave me a warning is a biased hack. he deleted my comments from his page but you won't let me do the same to mine? Not cool man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.54.179 (talk • contribs) 04:48, September 13, 2006
 * Who are you talking about? Please provide a link to the talk page on which he removed those comments. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  05:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Edward Saint-Ivan
Was this necessary? User:Edward Saint-Ivan and User:Edward saint-ivan haven't been used to evade blocks or 3RR - the latter stopped contribution as soon as the former started. I'm inclined to think that Saint-Ivan simply decided to capitalise his name properly. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking e-mail address username
Thanks for your note. I am aware of as well as. From WP:Username: E-mail addresses: Using your e-mail address as your username is not a good idea. Wikipedia content is extensively copied and the site itself is one of the most visited sites in the world. Any edit you make on Wikipedia will have your username attached to it, and using your email address will make you a tempting target for spammers. Additionally, usernames containing "____@wikipedia.org", etc. are blocked on sight, as such a name may misleadingly imply that a user is a member of the Wikimedia Foundation. There is no official policy regarding whether to block non-"wikipedia" email addresses, so it is left to the discretion of the blocking admin. Note to new user patrollers: you may use the template to recommend a username change to such users, or  to inform them of a block. (Underlining is my emphasis.) I've noticed that different admins handle this differently. In fact, I've had an admin revert my posting of &mdash; which I do use in certain situations. Thanks for offering your view on the matter. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Related question: On the "Block user" special page, if the box for "Prevent account creation" is unchecked, can the blocked user then create a new user account while still blocked? &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess so. (haven't tried though) -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Karina Kay Article?
Why was it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.154.11 (talk • contribs) 18:23, September 21, 2006
 * I have restored it because you have just contested the PROD. Please note, however, that it may be nominated for deletion on AFD. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  04:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for removing the vandalism from my talk page. I really appreciated that. Thanks a lot. -- bullet proof  3:16 04:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyanide and Happiness
Why has this article been deleted and protected? Speedy deletion calls for the creator of the article to argue his case in the article's talk page. I have done so: would you please care to look at my reasoning before you block this webcomic. bernlin2000 &infin; 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been deleted many times before; please see the deletion log. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  04:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So the rationale for deletion is because one user started the article? That's how every article starts! You need to give the article TIME to grow, that's how it works for all wiki articles. This article was unsalted, why has it been salted again? bernlin2000 &infin; 16:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

adyashanti
why is Adyashanti not an eceptable page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honuzenji (talk • contribs) 22:02, September 27, 2006


 * It is unacceptable because it does not assert notability. If you would like to work on it, I can restore it and move it to User:Honuzenji/Adyashanti. Please see WP:BIO for more info. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  01:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will go over the notibility information and try to determine for myself wether or not this person can actually fit. I tried to express his "importance to the subject," as the lack of importance was the stated reason for speedy deletion, which I determined was the subject of Nondualism on the talk page. Did you read it and if you did which arguements were not sufficent enough to warrant notibility?

I am new to wikipedia as a actual member so please forgive my ignorance but what is a User page verses a regular article? I ask in reference to your perposal to restore a revised version of the article to User:Honuzenji/Adyashanti.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honuzenji (talk • contribs) 00:03, September 30, 2006