User talk:P.B. Pilhet/Archive-Sep2007

Superquinn
Hello P.B.,

Thanks for your explanation on the Superquinn subject. I understand what is going on now. But the fact that my contribution was called vandalism just ticked me off. I hate being accused of something I never intended to do. I was trying to protect people with my contribution and not vandalize the Superquinn wikipage. That’s all. I think Angel of Sadness should choose her words more carefully before she starts accusing people. Eurocanna 01:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Eurocanna and Superquinn
The contribution he made didn't look very constructive at the time as you can see here as it was original research/unsourced content. But now that I've re-read it I guess I must have clicked the wrong warning when using Twinkle. Usually I'm more careful but I was dealing with several different vandals and sockpuppets(My first/second/third sock report to be exact :D). I best apoligise to him as that particular warning was a tad bit harsh. Thanks for telling me really I appreciate it. AngelOfSadness talk  18:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh vandaltools, they make Vandal fighting easy but they don't prevent mistakes. Thanks again :D AngelOfSadness  talk  21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm... What?
Hello. This is the real shroom_monk.

I recently tried to register here, to discover that the Shroom Monk name was already taken. Upon further investigation, I discovered that the account had been used to make attacks on member(s).

I never made that account, and feel it unfair that my name is being tarnished my the actions of someone else.

Is it possible to wipe that account, or at least the comments it made?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.20.115 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the edit, I apologize about not leaving my reason on the edit summary. I left it on the discussion page, which was careless. Perhaps I should have used the sandbox first. However, this was my reasoning about the edit- it is exactly what is on the school website. This reads like an advertisement. I could change "Bishop Loughlin challenges students to reach their full potential" to "Bishop Loughlin challenges students NOT to reach their full potential", and it would still be a matter of opinion either way. If I were a parent looking on wikipedia for an objective analysis of the school, I wouldn't get it from that page. I suggest it be cut to include just the facts of the school, or attached to a general article about the Diocese-run institutions.