User talk:Lamrock

Ann Coulter page
What are your reasons for deleting the fact that Coulter is a constitutional attorney? Awaiting your reply,

Paul Klenk 07:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Because she is primarily a propagandist author/pundit and has even admitted she doesn't work in the court system anymore--Lamrock 08:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but she can be a propagandist. a constituional attorney, and a gun-toting right-winger, all at the same time. Your POV deletions will be reverted, and I suggest you take a breather and not fight this for the time being.  If you stick around here long enough, you can learn more subtle, valid, and acceptable ways of influencing an article without breaking the rules.  If I can help, let me know.    Paul Klenk 08:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop deleting valid data and inserting your own POV. Zoe 08:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

We probably share the same feelings about this woman, but if you're going to make controversial edits, you should probably discuss them on the Talk page first. Zoe 08:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Until she's disbarred, she's still an attorney, whether she practices or not. Zoe 08:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're not removing it from the first paragraph, you're removing it from the entire article. And I already told you, discuss it on the Talk page. Zoe 08:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Ann Coulter talk page contains much discussion about Ann as a civil rights advocate. The consensus is that she is one. Lou Sander 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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 want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -Smahoney 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

3 Nov 2005
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed or reverted. 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. Thanks. &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta 05:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article Wrath of Bush. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! -- PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Re: "the movie is not real" (at my talk page)
 * If this is true, I recommending adding and other editors can research the topic and reach a consensus on whether said movie is "real" or not. If it's fake, the page will be deleted soon enough. Blanking the page in the meanwhile just wastes everybody's time. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrath of Bush
Regarding the comment you left on my talk page, well, regardless of whether or not the movie is real, blanking the article is not the right way to go about things. If you can substantiate your claim, then mention the evidence on the article's talk page. If you're sure that it's a hoax, then you can also nominate the article according to the procedures outlined in WP:AFD. However, "blanking" articles will generally be treated as vandalism and quickly reverted. Worse, it will not convince anyone of your argument. Personally, I have no knowledge of the film/hoax, so you could very well be right - if so, then hopefully things can be resolved soon via an Afd nomination. On a related note, after seeing your edit summary, I feel I should point out that there should be  no personal attacks. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories
I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories. Thank you. Blackcats 04:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

2006 Atlantic hurricane season
Please, there has been more than enough discussion, and enough opposition to such a move to actually come and blast everyone's work. Be bold, but not reckless. I've reverted it back. Tito xd (?!?) 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

in re entry on Sigmond Freud in Bisexuality
Hi I really like the paragraph you entered but I also know it's going to get blasted for NPOV and also have these things plastered all over it. So would you mind changing it to something more like "Sigmond Freud, in analysis on human sexuality wrote . . . ." and then giving links to his writing where he said the rest of that stuff so it can stay in? CyntWorkStuff 20:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear I'm afraid I'm just a computer programmer not a scholar.  I know more about Dr. Phil than Dr. Freud, (like I know  Dr. Freud) has hair & a white beard and Dr. Phil is bald but that's about it! LOL).  Where did you find that information where you said that Dr. Freud said all those things about bisexuality?


 * PS You probably don't know it but you put your comment on my "personal" User page not on my "Discussions" page, (dont worry I moved it over). But it might explain why you've been an editor on Wikipedia so long but haven't decorated your own User page yet.  Would you like some help getting started?


 * PPS If you didn't decorate it because you didn't want to, please excuse me I wasn't trying to be nosy, just helpful. Sincerely CyntWorkStuff 04:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Percent.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Percent.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Anus
Removing images from articles against the consensus of the participants could be considered vandalism. Please leave the picture alone on the anus article. Atom 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MySpace
You removed a paragraph, claiming people can make their profile private. That doesn't change the article's points, and such a removal was uncalled for without discussion. Also, don't add WP:OR to the article (mainly about youtube links) -- Chris is  me 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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. Phydend 01:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. —EncMstr 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:6a00d8341d0dbb53ef00e54f33c1b98833-640wi.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:6a00d8341d0dbb53ef00e54f33c1b98833-640wi.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 20:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please get consensus
Lamrock, please get consensus for your removal at Islam in the United States if you desire to make it. Removing the first sentence of a lead is always a major edit, and one that should be discussed on the talk page. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)