User talk:RandomXYZb/Archive 11

The mystery revealed
My original intent was to draft an essay on why one should preview, and the foolishness that results when one does not. It would have been located at That's why we preview, kids, for which I created the shortcut WP:TWWPK. I got into the habit of using the mnemonic, but never got to writing the essay. Maybe I should get around to it, now that I know people are actually clicking that link. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Teamfrocal
Hi Gilesbennett,

I haven't been able to find all this anywhere in the user's contribs. Remember that users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Can you explain?  Snowolf How can I help? 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
You are welcome.Mooncrest (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC) BTW you forgot the square thingy.Mooncrest (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your warnings
I do not care about them. You are in the evil camp and should be banned. WCKinger (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to block me then do it, what are you waiting for you kike infidel pig? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WCKinger (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page
Thanks for your help. FYI the vandal is, who was hard-banned by Jimbo Wales himself. He's angry that his latest sock account was uncovered and reverted. On another occasion a different vandal made a similar campaign against my talk page. After a lot of protection and other preventive measures when ended up woirking was to leave the page unprotected and let the guy get it out of his system. I've cleaned out the page so the vandal isn't doing any real harm. Hopefully he'll get bored of making pointless edits and go away. Meanwhile he's giving us a list of open proxies to block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mythic Game
I've just protected this page from recreation, so I don't think we'll be troubled with this again. I just wanted to mention two things. First, the tag you're using, (db-repost), is meant to apply to articles that were deleted as a result of an Articles for deletion process, and not merely for articles that have already been speedied. I couldn't find any AfD process for this article. The other thing is that I don't think it's quite proper to remove a (hangon) tag from an article ... I admit that the temptation would be irresistible, and I can certainly understand why you did it, but I don't recommend it in future. I appreciate your assistance with keeping this article deleted. Accounting4Taste: talk 21:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I totally agree on all counts, recreating an article with a built-in hangon tag is rather cheeky... the part about the repost tag is just that when an administrator sees that tag, we're supposed to check that the AfD process that's being referred to exists, and that took a few minutes. Thanks for understanding.  Accounting4Taste: talk 21:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dialie
You just sencure my article about dialie, but i not think it is an ad. i justify my sell by the fact that they process for more than 50 millions in credit card processing, and because it is a FREE solution. so nothing to win on advertis on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialie (talk • contribs) 07:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Kala(l)podi
Hi - thanks for replying on talk:Kalalpodi. I'm a newbie editor and, judging by Help:Merging and moving pages, my account isn't old enough to move the page (four days being s the lower limit), so I'd appreciate it very much if you could do so. Thanks for your prompt response. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I've added some categories and a couple of stub templates too; hopefully it's a more useful article now. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Help in saving an article from being deleted
You recently commented on Gina DeVivo's page. Thanks. Maybe you can help. As my title says "I am trying to save a article" Some people say it has notability andothers don't. I think it does. She has been on some famous shows and had some significant roles. She is even a recurring character in a Nickelodeon show. I searched Wikipedia's site and that's where I found the stub section. When I checked other young child actors article sites, that is what they used and their sites are not deleted. Another writer said that in due time, they too will be deleted, but I don't think so. Their sites have been up for years and are still there. Mine has only been around for a week and it's been sent twice to be deleted. If you go to some not so famous child actors you will see that their article is like Gina's. Can you help me improve it because I'm trying. Thanks RingPOPmom (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Krayv
Hi Giles bennett,

I'm not trying to advertise .. im just really confused as how to enter a definition of the word KRAYV ..

i tried starting articles but you keep on deleting them .. anyways .. im sorry .. i dont know how to use all this confusing WIkipedia page editor thing .. i just want to define to people the word KRAYV .. just like someone added Amazon.com .. i want to add krayv.com .. i just dont know what to write since verything i wirte is either too short or tagged as advertisment .. can i donate to wikipedia and you guys can write something about me instead ? i really dont know how to write in encyclopedias .. Thank you (please e-mail me on: krayv@krayv.com)  as i will not log in again .. i dont want to GET BLOCKED ..

Anas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alradwan (talk • contribs)

Nefab
Very curious statement made by the creator of the article, first: "If it's similar to the nefab.co.uk site I can edit it, if you like... I wasn't on the nefab.co.uk site so didn't know that, so thanks" Then this: "I am the webmaster for the Nefab Group companies, and anything written online is from myself." How does he/she not know what he/she wrote? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Snark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DAB#Individual_entries --Squirrels (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to believe people who want "the hunting of" can at least manage to type "hunting". --Squirrels (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest you log in before editing. --Squirrels (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks with your help on the vandal, I appreciate the assistance in keeping him off my page. Take care! Snowfire51 (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whaling in Japan
I used nothing from other pages. Everything was a result of research conducted by me from various sources. If any came to be similar than it was merely coincidence.

I will reedite de page again in a different way and post it again. If it is deleted than I would say that there is something with the infromation I worte. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sealove us (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that
Yes, the removal of things from talk pages is allowed, but no, in this particular position I don't think it was the preferable option. The IP vandalized the Shakira article about five minutes ago and soon after that they removed the warning that was posted on their page -- that doesn't imply that they read and understood the warning; it implies that they didn't want it on their page. That, I think, gives me reason enough to revert them. -- (FNM) (BANANA!) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:97.84.219.124&diff=186674457&oldid=186673633 -- (FNM) (BANANA!) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Users are allowed to remove things from their talk pages. That does not mean that random IP addresses are entitled to remove warnings for vandalism five seconds after they are issued, and it certainly doesn't mean I can't restore the warning if I feel that they removed it just for the sake of removing it and had no intent of reading or comprehending it. IAR says that if a rule gets in the way of bettering the encyclopedia, it can be negated. Because it was obvious that this IP had no intent of following rules, the warning could be restored without problem. If the IP had made mention of having read and understood the warning, yes, it could have gone. But they didn't, and I restored it. It should have stayed. -- (FNM) (BANANA!) 21:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Happy editing. -- (FNM) (BANANA!) 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what SN was trying to say is that established users may remove messages. IPs who have but a single edit that consists entirely of vandalism should not remove warnings by any means. -- (FNM) (BANANA!) 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is controversial. The page you cited is just an essay, but anyway even the policy one doesn't distinguish. I (and others) distinguish between registered users and ips as IPs are mostly dynamic, so the talk page isn't really "theirs". Anyway, for me the distinction is between IPs and registered users. Any registered user can blank his/her talk page. That is an undeniable right.  Snowolf How can I help? 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * suggestion: this is ready for the village pump again. We could end this simply: a/ it is not permissible to remove warnings from a user page, though it is to include them in an archive. OR  b/Except for vandalism, it is not permissible to remove material from a user talk page. The comments there belong to the community. The correct course is to archive. DGG (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wyatt Erhenfels
Gee, I'm not really sure I understand your point. Please, understand, that I'm NOT Erhenfels and I really don't know all the particulars connected with whatever conflict took place between Calton and this person. I'm not saying the two IP's and the Tai Streets user account couldn't be the same person. My point is - who cares if they are? None of "these" editors appear to have done any thing wrong. None of these editors are blocked. What is Calton doing?

As far as I can see, there is no Wikipedia article about an author named Wyatt Erhenfels, nor about his book. Why is this guy's professional reputation being trashed all over Wikipedia by Calton? Surely, referring to a published author as a "crackpot 'psychologist' whose book has been published by a vanity press" seems defamatory. I looked up the publishing house and it DOESN'T appear to be a vanity press. So, what's this all about? I read the author's site and I'm inclined to believe his claims of harassment. What is Calton up to? It doesn't strike me as anything legitimately connected to the betterment of this Encyclopedia. MegaMom (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the history of Wyatt's SEO campaign on Wikipedia, some pointers:


 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive80 - a brief wrap-up of his activities -- including his attempts to out my personal identity
 * Articles for deletion/Gang stalking - One of Wyatt's pet theories.
 * Articles for deletion/Sci.psychology.psychotherapy and the talk page- attempts to hijack this title for his theories (This newsgroup has no FAQ on faqs.org, and I cannot find any other secondary source material apart from material which is from the same single author (User:Wyatt Ehrenfels (talk · contribs), see above) as this article is. Delete. User:Uncle G)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking - attempts to hide his article in User space.
 * Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks - attempts to get Alt.usenet.kooks deleted as "libel". Note anon IP article edits around the time of the AFD such as this and this
 * Talk:Dream/Archive 1 - Wyatt tries to shoehorn in his crackpot theories into Dream. Includes some classic Ehrenfels paranoia and details of his vanity-press publications (...it's not only a vanity press, it's a vanity press with a bad reputation even among other vanity presses [as even a cursory search would turn up]).
 * Talk:Cyberstalking - attempts to hijack this article. Note especially the contributions of sockpuppet
 * Now, you said I think its pretty clear from your contributions that you're not Wyatt, unless you spent nine months "under cover" working on articles about needlepoint and breastfeeding. 
 * Now, you said I think its pretty clear from your contributions that you're not Wyatt, unless you spent nine months "under cover" working on articles about needlepoint and breastfeeding. 


 * I say, "Pretty clear"? The user had -- what? -- less than 350 edits over those nine months before popping up at AN/I to start retailing, verbatim, Wyatt's bizarre little conspiracy theories about me, along with some bogus -- and completely evidence-free, of course -- nonsense about how I was harassing "her" "son" on Wikipedia. The duck test applies, in spades: User:MegaMom is a User:Wyatt Ehrenfels sockpuppet or, at best, meatpuppet, and I'm not going to start pretending the sky is green when it clearly isn't. --Calton | Talk 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * do you really think he would bother building up a history of sensible editing to unrelated articles for nine months before relaunching his campaign?


 * Since you missed it, I'll highlight it above. Look for the boldface. Note: Arguments from Incredulity don't carry much weight with me.


 * I think it entirely more likely that you've crossed paths with her son and (assuming good faith) without knowing that they were a minor, come across somewhat harshly.


 * And I think it best not to pull things straight out of your hat, especially given the ironclad standards you're demanding of me regarding the recycled nonsense generated by User:MegaMom.


 * ''At the end of the day, however, you need to sh*t or get off the pot.


 * You first. Care to back up that weasel-worded "entirely more likely" with something reality-based?


 * Accuse her of being a sockpuppet, if you like, but there are now multiple editors telling you that they can see no evidence of sockpuppetry from her contributions'


 * Try reading above: Focus especially on the recycled nonsense at AN/I. There were "multiple editors" noting the bizarre nature of "her" claims, but those don't count, I guess. --Calton | Talk 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The "evidence" you provide is an edit by Tai Streets - that would justify putting a tag on Tai Streets' page stating that it he a suspected sock puppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels

Now you're being ridiculous. Did you bother reading the link?: the website referred to is to Wyatt Ehrenfels' website. Therefore Wyatt Ehrenfels = Tai Streets. And the whole POINT of the tags is 1) notification and 2) categories.

What IS your purpose here? What's with the ludicrous rationalizations on behalf of a brand-new stalker and harasser? Funny that MegaMom's unwillingness to provide even a shred of evidence doesn't get the hostile "you need to sh*t or get off the pot" treatment from you that you gave me. --Calton | Talk 12:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your latest edit to User:Wyatt Ehrenfels looks fine to me. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was the stub for artist Stephen Willats marked for speedy deletion?
While the stub for Stephen Willats is the first contribution I've added to Wikipedia, he is a notable British artist. I'm not sure why this stub was marked for (and quickly) speedily deleted, as I added an art stub tag, and a link to show he is notable as an invited speaker at Tate Modern, and that a book has been published of his works. I did attempt to follow the guidelines for notability and formatting. While I just began this article, I intended to add much more, as he has both a significant exhbition history and secondary source material about his body of work. It was suprising to see this stub deleted so quickly, since I spend hours researching Stephen Willats before I added him, and when many more stubs with less infomation seem to be on Wikipedia. Any feedback as to why this seemed worthy of speedy deletion would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcity001 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
Why AMI being asked to talk???Alek999 (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Smoke & Mirrors
I think you may be missing the point, where Calton is concerned. I don't think he REALLY believes I'm a sockpuppet of Wyatt Ehrenfels. If he did, he'd have filed a complaint. He knows full well that there really isn't any "evidence" to suggest anything of the kind.

Your own assessment of my situation is quite correct. I'm simply someone who did a bit of research of Calton after he hurt my son. Google "Calton" and "cyberstalking". I think you'll be surprised how much information comes up. Research "Charles Grahm" (of Japan) - or "Iceman" and "Wyatt Ehrenfels". It is really disturbing. When I saw Calton trying to get another editor blocked for something that "allegedly" happened offline, I posted a link to Ehrenfels site, in the interest of having a fair and balanced view presented. That's it, in a nutshell. Ever since then he's been accusing me of being a sock puppet. He knows I'm not. This is just an intimidation tactic, typical of cyber bullying behavior.

Calton, obviously doesn't like the big fat spotlight I have thrown on his misuse of Wikipedia, as a means of publicly humiliating and harrassing people. I'm sure he wishes he could find a way to shut me up. Indeed, the fact that he has used this opportunity to post MORE defamatory statements about this author - only goes to prove my point. Calton is using Wikipedia like it is a free web hosting service that he can use to libel, defame and harass people, while attempting to dodge personal liability. The fact that he would joepardize Wikipedia's reputation in such a manner shows just how much he REALLY cares about this project - I suspect - not at all.

It's all smoke and mirrors. In my opinion, Wyatt Ehrenfels isn't the villain in this story - Calton is. As far as I can see (and please understand that I haven't nit picked my way through every exchange between the two of them) the guy contributed to some articles, expressing views on Cyberstalking that Calton disagreed with. In defending his position, he apparently made it known that he held a PHD and was a published author. Aren't those the type of people we WANT editing Wikipedia? Calton has said that the fellow was plugging his own book. Maybe he was - maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was just providing a citation for material Calton was disputing. I don't know. Even if he WAS trying to promote his book - WHO CARES! The link has been removed and his article on Gang Stalking has been deleted. I think that's enough "punishment" and "humiliation".

I won't get into all the stuff Calton has apparently done to this person off Wikipedia, let's focus on what he's done ON Wikipedia. Ehrenfel's clearly identifies himself in some of the IP address postings. Sorry, but that doesn't seem like "sock-puppetry" to me. That sounds like an inexperienced or careless user, who just forgot to sign in. From the history, it looks as if Calton began posting Ehrenfel's IP address and posting defamatory statements designed to hurt the guy's professional reputation. I suspect Ehrenfel's didn't know that talk page discussions would be coming up on google searches of his name. It looks like he opened another account in order to protect his privacy. Sockpuppetry? Definitely! That's where he's wrong. Was Ehrenfel's angry and a pretty uncivil in some of the discussions? Absolutely! I guess he was really upset about his article being deleted and what he perceived to be harassment from Calton. Honestly, I don't blame the guy for being upset. But whatever he did wasn't severe enough to warrant a block. Regardless, he LEFT Wikipedia! This happened nearly TWO YEARS AGO! If Calton isn't stalking and harrassing this person - what IS he doing two years later making new personal attacks all over Wikipedia against this person?

I find it all VERY disturbing and I sincerely think administrators and the community at large need to take a much closer look at Calton's abuses on this forum. MegaMom (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on "Archbishop Sergius" text
Greetings, and thanks for your note in my talk. Is there a reason this text should not be edited for accuracy and verifiability? Much appreciative of any thoughts you can share with me on this. Concerned Reader 46 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up: My edits on this page were to the ends of verifying the statements made, since the individual concerned is using the page as a means of self-promotion on other sites. I'm not clear as to whether provision of material in userpages is allowed to be deliberately misleading and not subject to verifiability, as elsewhere on the site. My thanks in advance. Concerned Reader 46 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied here. gb (t, c) 09:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Wyatt Ehrenfels
Thanks for cleaning up that notice.

Though I question the extreme benefit of the doubt -- to put it charitably -- you're giving to User:MegaMom, given the borderline-libelous, evidence-free, and -- though I hope it's not necessary to say explicitly but I'll say it anyways -- outright false personal attacks this new user engages in, not mention the outright falsehoods (the peculiar claim of not understanding why I'm paying attention to this particular USENET crank, which might be because User:MegaMom dredged up the issue his/herownself in his/her bizarre charges at WP:AN/I a few months ago and unnamed violations of policy which you have apparently deleted User talk:Wyatt Ehrenfels but not sanctioned (and if they involve trying to out my identity -- accurately or not, and I expect not -- all the more evidence for the lack of actual good faith on MegaMom's part.

I have better things to do and don't need the drama, but as long as User:MegaMom doesn't continue his/her slow-motion stalking campaign as Wyatt's meatpuppet, I couldn't care less. If he or she continues, then I'll take up this issue at a higher level. It's bad enough that I get the morons at ED and WR on my case. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A question
If I can't put shedonkey on here, do you think I could put it on Wikictionary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by U60n0 (talk • contribs)

Re: blanking
thanks, i thought the IP blanking the page was vandalising so i reverted them, didn't realise the user was posting spam on their user page--Lerdthenerd (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Tags
Yes I know. I gotta tell gurch to add them to huggle.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but I would have to stop vandal fighting ;)   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fletcher Field Strength
User removed the PROD... you can wait for the user to clean up or the article or you can take it straight to WP:AfD. Your call, buddy! Scarian Call me Pat 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Yoman brunson
I removed the speedy tag because I felt he does offer the slimmest of assertion of notability in the article so it probably would not pass WP:CSD. If you think it will pass, though, by all means, replace it. Redfarmer (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Splint marked delete
Hey GB.. I sent you an email and here goes again. I added some links to the page I created and reading wikis Notability page I think my page titled Splint passes the notability test. so I don't think it should be deleted.

thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxxstory (talk • contribs)

Thanks
you're such a great help! I was wondering if you could make sure I'm doing right? I'm just posting links that's related to the article... Appreciate the help! Ariyen (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry people are so rude to you. So just note the removals of the pages in the discussions of the pages? Ariyen (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

oh where do i find edit summary? Ariyen (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Am a girl. Appreciate the help! Just I prefer to contribute, not advertise or anything as I'm being accused of. The sites were already there... I just know that all the pages for all the horoscopes exists on those sites so I thought I could re-add those sites to the other pages.... I don't see them as spamming, etc. I really don't see how they could go against the policy. Ariyen (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Geezbit!!
Mind your own damn business, stay out of mine.--JJonnzjunior (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

None Ya Bizness!!
No, it is not. Stay out of my way or I will be forced to step on you, dipshit!!!--JJonnzjunior (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
For dealing with an old "friend" of mine, and the checkuser reports you've placed. Just so you know, the original account, from way back when, is User:JJonz. He disappeared for a while, but appears to be back with a vengeance. Thanks for watching my back. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

help?
All of my changes have been undone! What do I do? :( Ariyen (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They undid them on pig, etc. going back to re-add them. Ariyen (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"what this is," not yet "what this is about."
You wrote, on the Talk page for User:The Community:


 * Don't take this the wrong way, but what on earth is this about? gb (t, c) 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't take it the wrong way at all, I hope. I wouldn't expect you, or just about anyone, to understand what is being proposed, at the present stage. Indeed, I was not ready to do this, but I saw that comment on the Village Pump and a light bulb lit in my head, and so I created the page. It is not yet anything that does not appear on the surface, but what it means is another story, that will take time to appear. I've done this many times, made some initiating step, in various organizations, and my experience is that if I explain first, people mostly go to sleep. A few people get excited, then go to sleep. Very, very few actually understand the possibilities, at the outset, in fact, I don't recall any examples. It seems to take, sometimes, about a year of exposure before it penetrates. This is because the concept I'm taking the first baby step to implement (which I *cannot* implement by myself, beyond pouring a little yogurt in the lake) runs contrary to a whole series of assumptions -- based on tradition and common experience -- and it takes time to move beyond that. Individuals are heavily defended against massive "meme attack," as they should be. You have raised certain issues on the Talk page, which I will address there. For the moment, however, I am expressing my appreciation for the work you do patrolling new pages, you are one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and I take your expressed lack of understanding as a positive sign, though I have no particular expectation of any outcome. Believe me, I've been doing this for many years, and I've seen the "outreach" fail countless times, and it has only been successful a few. It's getting more efficient, of late, and there are now others working on this, including, in fact, some experienced Wikipedia editors. But they are working elsewhere, not here. This is not just about Wikipedia, and I'm not attached to any sort of success here. It's up to the community whether to sleep, yawn, reject, or investigate, and, so far, they haven't really been asked to do anything. Few people seem to read the Village Pump beyond the first appearances of a topic there, and that has been the only announcement. You saw it from your service to the community, and properly asked, "WTF is this?" Frankly, I thought there was a good possibility it would be deleted on sight. I do know this community in some depth.

But this was not disruptive or an attempt to make a point. The occasion was merely a trigger for certain thoughts, Zenwhat's comment certainly did not intentionally suggest it. But the way I think almost always leads me to consider literal meanings. "How would The Community (TM) be blocked?" Well, The Community (TM) has to have an account to be blocked! What would that mean? And so certain ideas that I work on all the time came immediately to the surface, and, again, the way I think and work pretty much requires that I act immediately, or it's gone.

Yogurt in the lake: see Nasreddin and (and many other sources), but here it is:


 * One day people found Mullah Nasreddin pouring the remains of his yogurt into the lake.
 * A man among them asked, "Mullah Nasreddin, what are you doing?"
 * "I am turning the lake into yogurt," Nasreddin replied.
 * "Can a little bit of yeast ferment the whole lake," the man asked, while the others laughed at the Mullah.
 * "I understand," he replied, "but, just think, what if it works?"

--Abd (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:X1
Please look at the history before putting pages up for speedy. Q T C 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a sandbox for experimenting with templates. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

comment
you are such a fag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * stop putting these speedy deletion tags
 * give me a reason why you are doing this to my article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * uhm I see no problem with notability


 * there are other articles about hospitals!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't just mention that it exists, I also mentioned that it will be a new proton therapy center where there are only 23 operating proton therapy centers in the world


 * I believe this is very important as it will be the first center to do that in Taiwan, benefiting patients with prostate cancer for example


 * I also dont have a whole day to edit an article, if you just delete something because there's not enough info, I think you are fermenting an unhealthy atmosphere on wikipedia since you should leave the article so that people may come and contribute to it


 * to add a deletion stub while I am still editing on a OBVIOUSLY legitimate article
 * Comon you are the one who needs to read the civility article
 * it not just about the language you know - its about how you decide to treat people who spends extra time contributing to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.229.15 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * wait, you are saying that future possible events cannot be on wikipedia? what about those articles on future space missions? or future presidential elections
 * anyways, feel free to delete articles that you arbitrarily don't like, but just know this - you can push around people now on wikipedia, you cannot push around everyone in life


 * fag
 * please read this
 * you obviously don't know that it can stand for many things, why do you assume the worse?
 * are you admitting that you are.....? hahahahha

Hullo
Thanks for your kind welcome. I was irritated by the Chelsea, London article. I've made some fixes. The most irritating part is the pictures which separate the text in strange ways. If you don't know how to fix this, can you point me to someone who might help? Many thanks. West one girl (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)