User talk:PubliusJ/Archives/2010/February

hi
how do i assume good faith?--87.174.185.12 (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brendan Burke
Your personal attacks are out of line. In addition, your comment in the discussion won't be considered in the outcome by the closing administrator, since it doesn't address the question of the subject's notability in any way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So your feisty editing has prevailed. But, the article will be kept. Check the news. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You misspelled, "You're right. I apologize for my rudeness, and I have found some specific sources that I think show he's a notable person that aren't articles about his death.  I'm adding them to the discussion now." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 90.220.8.86
A tag has been placed on 90.220.8.86 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  G W … 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the support - you have quite the interesting User Page :) A liberal socialist who was in the military and is anti-choice? :P Danflave (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, "anti-choice" I hate that phrase. It's only a personal opinion, but I think the one thing that should reign supreme in everyone's lives above my opinion should be prerogative. Being anti-choice to me means picketing, when really it's a belief in my head :)


 * But yes, that's all true. And I was glad to lend my support :) GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just an uninvolved stranger who has followed the drama, here. I agree that Danflave is owed an apology.  FWIW, I noticed you have a "Grammar Nazi" tag on your user page, and I'm good with the use of the term.  Just the fact that it exists speaks volumes WRT the discussion, LOL.  What really chaps my backside is that some people (you know, the connected) get away with the type of behavior that was exhibited toward Danflave, while others who don't get away with far less.  It's disgraceful, and it's bad for the community.  I think there should be training requirements for admin types so they don't become...damn...can't even use the word, or I'll get swarmed by them...let's say "badge heavy," as some cops refer to other cops.  I mean, some of them close ranks on people and call them trolls, vandals, etc., at a drop of a hat.  Of course, people are going to be nasty in response, and the next thing you know, they're blocked.  It's even worse if you value your privacy, as I do, and choose not to use an account.  If you want a laugh, check out the Wikipedia, "bureaucratic f*ck," and related entries on Encyclopedia Dramatica.  Safe and pleasant travels!  12.5.250.137 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I took the whole outburst sort of personally since Dan was replying to something that I had originally said. I can't fathom what the heck is going through the minds of some the easily offended parties that have editing powers here on Wikipedia. There is no logic behind the original "offended party" and certainly the person who jumped into the discussion threatening to ban people from Wikipedia was being something beyond closed minded. The entire display has been unseemly. Lou2u (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)