User talk:Wikipediarules2221

Please click here to leave me a new message.
 * User talk:Wikipediarules2221/Archive

Fred Durst
Why your reverted my edits in Fred Durst. My edits is not vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.18.242.234 (talk • contribs)

My RfA
''' Announcement: It's an administrator! '''

Wikipediarules2221, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

When did I vandalize?
Hi, you sent me a message saying a vandalized a Columbia article? I'm not sure what you mean as I never vandalize Wikipedia. I do have an account and I certainly don't vandalize with it either. I can understand why you'd want to prevent vandalism, I hate it too, but I never vandalized any articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.49.175 (talk • contribs)

In reference to User: 66.217.49.175 I'm sorry, but I don't want my computer getting blocked from Wikipedia for something I didn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.49.175  (talk • contribs)

Let us settle the casw here. What happened? You had to do something to be blamed. You should read the rules before coming on Wikipedia. It depends on your action on Wikipedia. Let me know. -Rosie Chang EmojiLove (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Kneegrow
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 21:30, April 29, 2008 (UTC)

Short Bus
There is an objection to listing some of the slang-term equivalents of "short bus".

I agree that they are offensive and would not use them myself.

However, among them are some terms that I would not have recognized and therefor could not have objected to had I heard them used. (I had to look up Short Bus.)

Let's refrain from censoring such entries. They are useful and helpful.

- An adult should be able/allowed to mouth any such offensive slang he likes if that is his opinion/feelings. If you were actually able to censor such language out of the vernacular, such persons would only repeat their mean, inconsiderate opinions in other terms just as offensive and hurtful.

On the other hand, if we prosecute Hate Speech we set a precedent whereby any talk critical of government can be prosecuted (this already happens in many countries already).

However, children who use those offensive terms should be corrected. they must be told that such language in not appropriate nor fair. I would not even hesitate to correct other people's children.

- Kids can be cruel and you can't change that completely no matter how hard you try.

More fruitful would be to teach the children, especially the most vulnerable ones, that:

1) Other kids will say stupid hurtful things BUT they should not be taken seriously.

2) Remember how much it hurt you (every kid has been taunted about something) and make up your mind not to hurt others.

- Robin (72 and taking the long view) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.90.186 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Poo juice
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –  iride scent  17:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

foie gras addition
hi there! please cite reference(s) for the addition to the foie gras article if you add it back, thanks! Sarah Katherine 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't make an addition to the foie gras article? Someone did so, using your identification.  Sarah Katherine 20:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, now i see i may have made a huge mistake, sorry about that!! Sarah Katherine 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What?!
What?! Alan16 (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Keys
I noticed your comment on the Bobby Keys article; if you can find a reference for his drug use and addiction, please leave the reference on my talk page, and I'll add it and expand the text some to fit the topic properly. Note: I too, am not an editor on that article-- have too many others I should be attending to, (between Wikignome stuff and actual contribs), although I get sidetracked a lot doing so. It's how I ended up on the Keys piece! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Wikipediarules2221! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Toshifumi Suzuki -

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kim Kardashian, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to question on Top US Contractors list
|Page link In response to a question you raised [|here]: Academi is not listed on the List of Top 100 Contractors of the U.S. federal government because it is not on the list of Top 100 Contractors of the U.S. federal government.Puppier (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment buried in Talk:Muscle Shoals
At 05:57, 31 March 2010 you contributed in a talk section that was rather spread-out. Its heading at that time was IMO obscured by intervening ALL-CAPS material that could have given, to text then in the middle of the section, the "look and feel" of the start of another section. Below there, you used the (technically ambiguous) phrase "This section" where you may have meant not
 * 1. an article section that your talk contrib did not specify (or at least not explicitly so),

but rather one or the other of two current talk sections, namely
 * 2. Talk:Muscle Shoals, Alabama or
 * 3. what was previously part of that long section, namely the new section that begins with an intervening section-heading retrofitted by me, namely Talk:Muscle Shoals, Alabama.

My best guess is that #2 is not the case, but it would be helpful if you could review that edit of yours, and identify what text you (at least most likely) intended to comment on. Perhaps we could discuss how to make that intent clearer with a further edit. (I'll watch this section, as i assume we'd both find it convenient to keep our discussion in this one section.) --Jerzy•t 10:02 & 10:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)