User talk:Meachly

Speedy deletion tags
Hi there. Could you be a little more careful when applying speedy deletion tags? The A7 criteria can only be used when an article doesn't assert notability. For example Brad Heald. The notability is asserted as it says he is the bassist of an Australian band. If you would like any help understanding anything, please let me know. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Human stupidity
Category:Human stupidity, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. --Catgut (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? How exactly do you deduce that this is a "Non neutral point of view"? Meachly (talk)


 * Your edit speaks for itself. Whatever you personally consider "would be thoroughly amusing" is your opinion which you are entitled to in your private life, but inserting your estimation into an encyclopedic article is not helpful and not in accordance with aforementioned policies. Please read Neutral point of view, which should resolve any remaining questions regarding this issue, and is generally quite useful for new editors like yourself. --Catgut (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags
Please, be careful when adding speedy deletion tags on articles. The applies only on articles that have no content at all. See CSD A3. Thank you, Victao lopes (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * is CSD A1: "Very short articles without context" like that one. Meachly (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no, the article you tagged had context, in fact. It was patent nonsense, but it had context. See CSD A1 and CSD G1. Victao lopes (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Abigail Taylor
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Meachly (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I very strongly suggest that you leave me alone. I very strongly suggest that.  I promise you.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Uh, yeah, Meachly, if you have any problems with Joseph Spadaro in the future, you are more than welcome to contact me, because threats like that are not acceptable, and don't even try to Wikilawyer your way out of it, Joseph, it is a threat. Mike H. Fierce! 07:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Valerie Lakey
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Valerie Lakey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Valerie Lakey. Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work
Even though we had some semantic disagreements about the exact wording of a couple sentences, I wanted to say that your work on the Abigail Taylor article was excellent! I read through the history log to review the changes, and after several of your edits I found myself thinking "I wish I had thought of that". Despite some of the 'sound and fury' on the talkpage, the article itself looks great now. Well done : )  Doc   Tropics  18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well thanks. I understand this case received high profile media coverage in the US.  So it's understandable that people get emotional about it.  Hopefully I've been able to see it more objectively, not living in the USA. Meachly (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly Claim?
I am a long time user of Wikipedia and do NOT deserve such comments as what you made on edit of This is a perfectly good contribution, and a PHOTOGRAPH of the actual flyer, so you technically are in the wrong. Pardon me for being so un-Wikipedia like here, but you can go fuck yourself. Googie man (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

+ You are absolutely correct when you say that your photograph is a perfectly good contribution, just as you were absolutely wrong when you claimed that the copyright was yours. You made a (photographic) copy of a work created by others. Asserting copyright on something which you don't own is bordering on fraud, so it was imperative that this mistake was corrected. Meachly (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, I've edited this site for 4 years, worked in the Wikimedia Foundationffice - what have you done? Fraud?  "Silly?"  All you had to do was write "corrected copyright status." but instead you wrote something snarky and pompous, and you just joined this project.  Why don't you first learn to respect the community values before you go popping off at long-time users who've done much more to further the success of this project than yourself.  And look, if Wikipedia doesn't want something of historical value, such as this photograph, then hell, delete it, I don't care if this is what I can expect.  I have never told anyone on Wikipedia this, and much less twice, but with your attitude, you can really go fuck yourself, you pompous insignificant twit.  If this is the only power you have in your life, then you are abundantly pathetic, and no longer worth my time.  Fuck you. Googie man (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just read this licence:
 * "This image is a work of a United States Department of State employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain."
 * The image is NOT the work of the United States Department of State, the image was taken by me, and the flyer was made by the United States Army Air Corps. So I ask you, who is making the silly fraudulent claims?  Who in the hell are you to state that I'm making silly claims when you can't eve get the information correct on the license?  Tell me how a leaflet, which is my personal property, is somehow something in the Public Domain?  This is NOT a leaflet that belongs to the Federal Government, it's my property.  Furthermore, this is a photograph of my property.  How *in the fuck* is this a "silly" or "fraudulent" claim?  Listen, I've never personally done anything wrong to you, and I am sick and tired of people like yourself coming in and telling my that my contribution is somehow silly.  You are the silly one. Judging by other comments on your talk page, you are not making any friends on Wikipedia.  I suggest that you change your attitude, and quickly.  I am reverting your edit, putting the original GNU/CC license back on the image, because you are incorrect.  However it still stays off the Psychological Warfare article out of protest for people such as your self being tolerated on Wikipedia.  It's people like yourself who chase off long-time users.  Now if you have any further problems with me, by all means, tattle on me and get me banned, as I've long since stopped caring because of people such as yourself.  And again, fuck you.Googie man (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Economy of Shanghai
You can go fuck yourself for saying it has no content, it does, and stop acting like your the boss of everything and actually contribute, dumbass. 24.62.234.199 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for your opinion. However you are putting yourself at risk of being blocked per WP:CIVIL. Meachly (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then actually contribute instead of boosting your edit count by not actually helping Wikipedia with your random delete tags and redirects. 24.62.234.199 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Asserting copyright on something I don't own
Will you please tell me, since you are obviously such an expert on copyright law that you can distinguish between genuine and "silly" claims, what in the fuck you mean by "asserting copyright on something" I "don't own?" If you had bothered to find out, you would've known THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE LEAFLET! I DON'T CARE WHO IT WAS CREATED BY, I AM THE OWNER OF IT. THEREFORE ANY PHOTOGRAPH OF THE LEAFLET **************I OWN******************** IS PRESUMABLY SUBJECT TO GNU/CC, AND NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN!! If I'm wrong, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you, or would've accepted a polite change. I hate that this website, which used to be a community of people with interest in mutual respect, intellectual debate, and the furthering of human knowledge, is now overrun by hostile, pompous, sniveling pseudo-intellectual eunuchs who have no personal power in their own lives, and therefore lord over what little they have by calling long time users "silly" and accusing them of "fraudulent" behavior. Go call refer to someone else as silly and fraudulent. Leave the pictures I've gone through a lot of time and trouble to put on Wikipedia **the fuck alone** Do you get it now? Googie man (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Meachly
Uhhh, heeh heeh, obviously you caught me on a bad couple of days. Let me apologize to you for my long stream of profanity and invective to you. However, now that I'm not so angry about the whole thing, hopefully I can reach you objectively about an important point. My misattribution of the leaflet's copyright was an honest mistake. I've uploaded probably one hundred or so photos on Wikipedia, and I've only misattributed something once. And that one time, I got a really inappropriately snarky message from yourself. What got me going was that I spent so much time making sure that the image was the best I could make it, and any editing I do of Wikipedia is always on borrowed time, as I'm really too busy to do it. It just seems to me that most of my hard work is for naught anymore, as people vandalize my edits continuously, and when they're not vandalized, I get that message from you. It really was uncalled for, and I hope if you learn anything from this, you know now to think twice on referring a very long time users edits as "silly." Maybe, just maybe, he's in a hurry. Always assume good faith - that's one of the cornerstones of this website. The former editor Googie Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.197.194 (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If my use of the word "silly" offenced you, then I apologise. I think those scans of the flyer are really interesting.  Meachly (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Proposed deletion of East End Health


The article East End Health has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * long unreferenced article about charity with unclear notability (all external links are from facebook or their own websites)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)