User talk:CanadianLinuxUser/Archives4

I prefer to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here, probably with a copy to your page. But if I left a question on your talk page, feel free to reply there or here, depending on your preference. Thanks!

Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. Re: post on my talk page Do you want me to show you how I did that? J.delanoygabsadds 18:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Yup that was a real request from me. ;-)--CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC) What I meant was, I wasn't positive what you wanted me to do. I'll send you an email. J.delanoygabsadds 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Oh.. yes... I am wanting to know how you did that ;-) --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Email sent... Trench Wars (zone) Look, I wrote that article and I am the sole author of it. Therefore, I have the right to delete or edit any material on it I feel is necessary. As it is up for deletion, I left the deletion tag. I don't know why you'd even threaten to remove my power to edit articles when I'm removing an article that I created, that's going to be deleted anyway. I'm sick of the discussion around it -- it's going to be deleted anyway. Maybe next time take a few seconds before jumping to conclusions?Eganjt (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Actually, no you don't.... once the article is on Wikipedia, it is everyone's article. Therefore, you must follow the rules of Wikipedia. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Well according to the Speedy Delete section of wikipedia, blanking out one's own page is an acceptable way for speedy deletion to occur. Like I said, I am the sole creator of the article, and I'm sick of taking flack from other's opinions on it. I'd rather it was removed LIKE EVERYONE WANTS IT TO BE.Eganjt (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry to butt in, but I'm going to have to agree with Eganjt on this one. Aside from a bot doing a subst on a template, he is the sole contributor to the article. He is also the only person who has voted "keep" in the AfD discussion. Since no other editors have contributed to or expressed a desire to keep this article, IMO it is perfectly within process for the original creator to blank the page and request deletion, per CSD#G7. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC) This is an accurate assessment. I've deleted the article based on G7. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I saw someone blanking an article and coming here screaming "ownership" having no idea about the Speedy deletion discussion. Obviously, my reaction was quick but appropriate or so I thought. Vandalism is usually evident but it seems can be blurred... I stand (or in this case sit) corrected. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Poetry of the United States Hello You seemed to be informative about reverting drastic revisions back to the original article. This unknown person called poetactionboy [1] seemed to taken upon himself to do drastic revisions with the article on Poetry of the United States. I do my share of editing many articles but I don't how to revert unsourced revision back to where the article was before such drastic revision. Can you give me any advice on this matter? Thank you for your careful scrutiny on your other reversions. Pjt48 (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Looking at the changes as a whole... [2] he moved and combined sections rather and did some minor grammar changes. Not being a specialist in poetry, American or otherwise, I recommend you take a good look at the changes as a whole and discuss it with him on the talk page of the article or his talk page the parts that you are having trouble with. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Why? WHY did u change the fact that Clodovil Hernandes is the only gay politician in SOUTH AMERICA, ARE U HOMOPHOBIC, that is very constructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.18.120 (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Hmmmm... I guess there was a source for your claim --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Karl Rove Listen dawg, Karl Rove has been called Turd Blossom. I'll find evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.105.166 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC) If you have a cited reference, then you may add it as per Wikipedia:Cite. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_George_W._Bush He's the second under Staff That's nice.... find a reference for Karl Rove as folks have found for Bush --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Whats the deal Whats up with scrubbing Perkins history of dealing with racist groups like the CCC? What standard of encyclopedic art does that section fail to embrace? Does it need a citation that says the date he gave the speech to the racist meeting? Or what? Or is it just that you are covering for Perkins, for some reason? Unlikely for a Linux user, or a Canadian. So I remain puzzled. Why keep removing that section? If you have a cited reference, then you may add it as per Wikipedia:Cite. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC) As you wish - the reference was already cited in the same article [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanbigel (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC) As it was an anonymous IP, calling someone racist, you understand my scepticism. And the citation was not included in the previous edit. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC) WP:AIV Thanks for RC patrolling, but please don't report accounts that only have two vandal edits within a minute. Sometimes it's just not enough time for a warning to reach their browser. Blocking at that early an stage makes it a bit hard to assume good faith when some of them eventually file an appeal for unblocking. There's just not enough of a pattern to ban them forever -- and yes, I have seen some young vandals reform after the first few warning. Some of the time they're just people experimenting with the whole "anyone can edit" concept and will back off the moment they realise that there are people watching their edits. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC) If they create an account and vandalize from edit one.... I am calling a spade a spade. I do not report anonymous ips as such, only accounts. --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Smurf Communism I'm sorry, but my edit to the sumrfs was not vandalism at all. What I added, was based in fact, and relevant to the topic at hand. I'd really prefer you not delete constructive additions to the article. That'd be really nice. Gargamel did in fact want to melt them into gold, and thus this was not vandalism, but a valuble addition to the article. Good day. Smurf Communism I'm sorry, but my edit to the sumrfs was not vandalism at all. What I added, was based in fact, and relevant to the topic at hand. I'd really prefer you not delete constructive additions to the article. That'd be really nice. Gargamel did in fact want to melt them into gold, and thus this was not vandalism, but a valuble addition to the article. Good day.