User talk:Onorem/Archive 4

	Archives
	Archive 1 - 2006
	Archive 2 - Jan 2007
	Archive 3 - Feb-Mar 2007

Hello. Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page.
Remember to sign your comments by adding --~~~~ at the end.
I will reply on your talk page unless you request I reply here.
I reserve the right to edit the style, not substance, of comments left for my own readability. (Punctuation, Spelling, Capitalization)
If I do edit your comments, a diff will be provided showing the changes.

Message from Geoffrey Giuliano

Excuse me, but I am Geoffrey Giuliano, and I know my own birth name. Your source is wrong. Further, I listed my good reviews and no one includes them.
[They] only [include] the bad ones. Does that seem Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.184.201 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:COI and WP:VERIFY. --Onorem 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[The] Giuliano: Lennon, imagined article is sourced twice in the references. Can you delete one of them at least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.188.42 (talk • contribs) -comment moved here from User:Onorem.

Edit made for section readability.

Onorem

You are the worst Wikipedia user ever. I hope you don't mess with my articles again or I'll get my uncle, Donald Trump, involved! --Tinderbxboy 20:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do. In the meantime, please read WP:LEGAL and WP:OWN. Also, please refrain from creating unencyclopedic articles about your opinions. --Onorem 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello chump

You don't know anything about Wikipedia, do you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinderbxboy (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I'd like to think I know enough, but if there is an area you think I need to work on, please advise. I'm always looking to improve. --Onorem 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit made for section readability.

Please remove your tag...

The article was created only a few seconds ago per request and is in the process of being developed. Your deletion tag is not helping me edit the article one bit. Nebraska bob 12:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Onorem 13:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit made for section readability.

Thanks

Thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page so quickly! Lcarscad 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoops - Learning

I did remove your deletion tag from the 121 Community Church page before reading that I wasn't supposed to. For that, I apologize. I did, however, expand the page to make it more than a stub, with a few references thrown in. I'm still learning to navigate around Wikipedia as a contributor. . . so I was unaware of the {.{.hangon.}.} tag option. I was in the process of adding content and "saved my work" before I had really put anything useful in there. Thanks for your help, --Fickman 21:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC) (edit to remove the hangon tag and explode it so that it was readable and not actually included on yoru talk page) --Fickman 21:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove tags

Please remove your tag, my article is not advertising, but a review of the BSA Supersport. --Mcmadkat 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my tag to remove. I was simply replacing the tag which you inappropriately removed twice.
Please review the neutral point of view policy and tell me if you think that what you wrote is acceptable. --Onorem 11:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me edit my page, you got the picture working! :) --Mcmadkat 11:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

crazybilby

This... sucks... How many different references and citations and all that junk like "being notable" and "asserting why its worthwhile" and all those things before ONE of my articles (The serious ones. I've stopped the non-serious ones... they were just pathetic) gets allowed to stay on this site? I think my article deserves to just stay there and be edited every couple of months until it becomes large enough to have a table of contents and maybe even be viewed by people... Just let it live people. It's not a hoax or anything like that. The guidelines to what's notable and what's not isn't clear enough so if that article isn't notable I don't know what is...

12:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)~ Exodustheory

How many references? You could start with 1. There wasn't a single reliable source provided. A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Has any source published anything about crazybilby? If not, he's probably not notable yet. Pages don't get to just sit around for months without any sources. (Well, they're not supposed to anyway.) It sounds like he's a good person, but there are millions of people that donate to charity and encourage others to do so. That alone doesn't make each of them notable. --Onorem 13:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit made for section readability.

Look, you might be a sock of him http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:oPjPaTBckosJ:edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2006/08/gotcha-2.html+edward+lucas+william+mauco&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

And who is William Mauco??