User talk:Onopearls/Archive 1

Removal of comments from my talk page
Please do not remove comments to which I have replied from my talk page, and please do not remove comments of mine from my talk page. You may want to take a look at the Wikipedia talk page guidelines. —AldeBaer (c) 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may remove comments from your own talk page, but please note that archiving is strongly preferred over removal, except e.g. in cases of personal attacks. —AldeBaer (c) 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's simply not ok to remove those comments by yourself. You can either ask me to remove them, or you can strike your own comments if you want to clarify that you regret what you wrote there. That way, they are still there and readable, so that anyone can follow the exchange. To give you an example:


 * BLATANT ATTACK WRITTEN IN CAPITALS. ~ results in:


 * BLATANT ATTACK WRITTEN IN CAPITALS. —AldeBaer (c) 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You may also add a note, like this:


 * BLATANT ATTACK WRITTEN IN CAPITALS. —AldeBaer (c) 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (struck ill-considered comment of mine —AldeBaer (c) 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC))


 * By the way, if you want to set up automatic archiving of your talk page, all you need is here. —AldeBaer (c) 17:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * replied. —AldeBaer (c) 17:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
I'm extremely confused by this. I take it that it means that you are rescinding your apology and reinstating your original message? For what it's worth, when I received your apology, I was extremely grateful and in response, I went to start a page of my own listing the people I have personally nominated for adminship, what I look for in nomination candidates and my own standards for adminship. When previewing the first stage of the page, I got the "new messages bar" and discovered you had deleted your apology message. I'm rather confused, but it's very late here and I'm off to bed. so don't worry about it. I'll just leave things there. Sarah 17:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * didnt realize it deleted that. sorry bout that. i reposted my apology. = ) sorry for the misunderstanding. Onopearls 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

what
what profanity or vulgarity are you talking about? the last edit I did was to Peter Griffin (Family guy) and I inserted absolutely no profanity. I do share the computer. You're going to have to tell me speciffically what you are referring to. I have spoken out against vandalism on wikipedia numerous times. So, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Anna Anderson
I have reverted the edits you made to this article. They are not grammatically correct in some instances and in others you have added uncited opinions. I am in the process of attempting to rewrite this article to provide more balance and in-line citations, per the discussion on the Anna Anderson talk page. It's such a mess it's going to take several days before it's finished. --Bookworm857158367 23:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Onopearls the vandal User: Questforanastasia has been warned. This person needs to be blocked as they have repeatedly broken the wikipedia 3RR rule and regularly rant, do not sign their contributions on the discussion page and have a clearly proven unverifiable POV agenda. Finneganw 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Onopearls can you arrange the blocking please for the above mentioned reasons? Thanks Finneganw 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Futurama
Hi there, I note you undid my undo of 6z's edits to the Futurama article. If you check out the rest of his contributions you'll note they're fairly inane and poorly written, as this one was, and they've all been reverted and all by people other than myself. Just a headsup! Docta247 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Native American Tribal Entities?
Hi there! :) Is there any reason why you're delinking the red entries at List of Native American Tribal Entities? Best regards,  P h a e d r i e l  - 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning; but you see, having them in red is also a guide to know which ones of them still need to be made ;) Every now and then, I go to that list and pick a red link to turn it blue; and so does other people. Having them linked is also a good way to know when one of them is created by someone unaware of the existence of that list. For these reasons, I tend to believe it's beter to keep them linked, even if they're currently in red. I applaud your efforts in creating entries for them, by the way - I could definitely use a hand there :) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to mention that I agree, the red links are very helpful, and the manual of style guidelines rather supports their existence (see WP:RED). Plus, I can never decide what title to use for new pages, and the red link makes that decision for me. For instance, removing red link to "List of Native Alaska Tribal Entities" means I have no idea if such a page should exist or if its information is actually existent in List of Federally Recognized Native American Tribal Entities, and I don't know what title might be most appropriate (BTW, filling out the Alaska page should be pretty easywith any of the many lists already around, no?). Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you go with the "Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs" found in the FR for updating the Alaskan villages, we already have a subpage called Federally recognized tribes/Former Federal Register versions listing the current and the previous version of the FR with that list. The List of Native American Tribal Entities was updated using that list. CJLippert 20:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. see User_talk:CJLippert CJLippert 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Peter Griffin
I've heard that Peter's license is shown in "Meet the Quagmires." Here's the problem, though. The license says 1966, but in an earlier episode from season 2, Peter makes a joke about winning a contest when he was a kid involving who could get the most ticks. The episode then shows a trophy that says "Most Ticks 1965." Since Family Guy has a floating timeline, dates don't stay the same. There is a very loose continuity on that kind of stuff. Before episode 5.11 ("The Tan Aquatic with Steve Zissou"), Peter was always referred to as 42. In that episode, he was referred to as 43. No episodes made a reference to his age (that I am aware of) until episode 5.18 ("Meet the Quagmires"). Though I don't remember seeing it myself, I've heard from many others that his license shows that he was born in 1966. Then in 1984, he is 18. That means he is either 40 or 41 in 2007. Honestly, knowing the laid back attitude of Family Guy and the writers, they probably saw that Peter would be that age in 1984, said, "Hey, close enough to 43," and put it into the episode. That's just what I think, though. I can't support that idea with any kind of proof. Maybe it is a retcon of Peter's age. Anyway, the episode is "Meet the Quagmires." Sorry to talk forever about this. - Vert Bandit

Yeah....
Go look at the link I gave you. I welcome you to post on that discussion, but until then the consensus is that it was a one off joke. Neither one of us want to start an edit war, so just post on the discussion page, then undo it if you can get enough support. Saget53 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cannon EOS article
A tag has been placed on Canon EOS 3000N, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Viperphantom 19:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Francis Griffin
An editor has nominated Francis Griffin, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)