User talk:Peridon/Archives/2009/January

Video profiling article
Greetings! You originally tagged the article Video profiling for deletion as spam. I deleted it partly due to those concerns but mainly due to copyright infringement. The copyright issue is cleared up (GFDL release via OTRS); I've edited the page to, hopefully, remove the promotional text. If you'd like to revisit the article and review the text as well as my comments on the talk page, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Alonzo33
I love internet moderators! "like a rhino in a corn field"? So poetic yet SO powerful! You say no use of magazine articles which is ironic. I used and credited a magazine article on a page that already has a Forbes article used credited. No deletion there lol. Oh but Orange Mike says that Entrepreneur Magazine does 'puff pieces' and yet Forbes does not? At least TRY to be consistant. Besides the blatant lack of consistancy, is there any order or just pick away at whatever you choose? Too funny. And I even asked Mike 3 times to explain the 'puff piece' comment and still have no reply. At least admit you're wrong and have no basis rather than hide. Oh wait, this is the web, I forgot. When in doubt, just hide. Good stuff for sure!Alonzo33 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(moved by Peridon to correct place) I am sincereley struggling here lol. I am trying to post the actual magazine article WITH the reference. It merely speaks of the growth in the aloe industry AND mentions many other companies. This is in reference to forever living products and Terry Laboratories.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alonzo33" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonzo33 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ControlCircle
Yes, I will stop deleting the spam stamps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradomski (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for reverting my talk page. My first thought was that my account had been compromised and used to make bad edits, so actually quite relieved it was just crappy talk page vandalism. --Jameboy (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ghosts
No worries. I was a bit confused. Looks like he's a few other contributions which probably need looking at. I simply reverted a couple anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tea Talks with CEOs
Will you change your opinion if we appear in London newspapers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acakdeniz (talk • contribs) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Peridon. We hope to put new sources when we appear more.Thank you--Acakdeniz (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)comment added by Acakdeniz (talk

politicians
"I also wouldn't reckon that all Congressmen were notable"

I saw your comment on AFD. I have seen quite a few Congressmen article of questionable notability. Should we delete these? When people put in genuine effort and write a reasonable article, it's a bit mean to try to delete it. It's easier to try to delete the poorly written obscure article. What do you think about William Nelson (congressman), for example? I try not to be WP:POINTY but I'm unsure that that and similar articles. What is your opinion? Chergles (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Destruction of Lord Raglan
Yeah, it had to be done. It was most puzzling. 'Cause of the Crimean War - Fleas in the tents'. HeHe. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Socks
Thank you for the info! I've added it on the Investigation page, feel most welcome to provide more detailed information. Siru108 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you add it on this page instead, under comments by other users? If you can show the edits as diffs, that would be excellent! Siru108 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)