Jump to content

User talk:Dodo bird

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hafspajen (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 24 November 2014 (Ramifications). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

archive

Removal of duck image

Hi. I agree with your removal of the duck image on Poultry farming, but I think we need some images of poultry other than chickens - do you have any ideas?__DrChrissy (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some I found on Commons.--Dodo bird (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Shepherd reverts

Hello, I reverted the edits to English Shepherd and Talk:English Shepherd because they were made by Kumioko, a banned user, in violation of his ban. But it looks like you and another IP user have taken responsibility for them by reverting my edits so I won't touch them again. Graham87 07:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Summary

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#.22Summary_Tables.22_for_Fatal_Dog_Attacks_article conversation is not over. I will wait the appropriate amount of for you to respond substantively to my points there and redo this. It is not enough for disagreement to exist, it must be substantive and in line with the general consensus about rules, guidelines, correctness in matter of fact, and good rhetoric and reasoning. This is not what consensus means, not vote count. Chrisrus (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramifications

that you may not understand. And calling [fucking as-hole] - considering the tone of that discussion is over the top. Hope you don't use this kind of language to often because it is not very constructive. And you are not even Eric. Hafspajen (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]