Welcome!

Hello, Fnarf999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  :) - Mailer Diablo 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! and Hi. I see you have added Raimondi to the basses! We need an article on this wonderful singer. I wonder if you would have time to contribute one? - Kleinzach 08:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this article, it is expandable with "household" oven pictures, which are not completely un-important. The oven article would get hudge...
Probably you may suggest to delete split-articles of transformer for deletion as well - the time when i have created them.
Adds nothing - this is not a reason for deletion - check Afd policies which say a stub of just a few lines is not a deletion reason.
It is not an unexpandable dictionary definition.
If you suggest other tiny articles (of mine) for deletion, not related to policies, then i do not take it (see CTR-L my signature).
Looks you are new here, you should read the policies if you haven't already. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Baking oven includes no information, just verbiage. You insist that it is the only place where food preparation is mentioned, but that is simply wrong. And even if it wasn't, the solution to an omission in an article is not to create a new article with the missing information. Add it to the Oven article. The suggestion that people use the phrase Baking oven instead of just Oven in English is wrong and absurd.Fnarf999 15:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuo are not wrong. However i thought it right, because other oven pages already do exist, such as microwave oven, industrial furnace, which do not do any baking! It is not only the question of spoken english, also how is it called by manufacturers, or the technically exact label. I do not mind extending the oven article, thought it better to keep it short. People might search for "baking oven"? It does not really do damage. I do not insist on things, if people show up new/good arguments. Sometimes i try to defend a position. User:Akidd_dublin 9 may 2006

No English speaker would ever, ever search for "baking oven". The phrase does not have independent meaning. They might search for the two terms together in a boolean sense but not as a phrase. No one has ever gone into an appliance store or restaurant supply store and asked to purchase a "baking oven". The phrase does not exist. If your familiarity with English idioms prevents you from understanding that, perhaps you should not edit the English Wikipedia pages. Fnarf999 00:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say "an oven for baking purpose". Some oven's are not baking anything. I do not know the terms, computer chip chemicals go through an oven, but it is not called baking. look: a baking oven company! www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/IN-suppliers/Baking_Oven.html

• Unless you are website owner, you should not make assumptions about search terms that other people are using.
• www.mems-exchange.org/equipment/E1298/ I am going to proove a point, but i was not wrong forehand, and you started it. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was more sucessful with MiniDisc and Yahoo! Groups. Sometimes i try to rework articles, which are made up from confusing grammar, especially to ordinary people (End-user_computing). I do not believe this is real OR, just not well enough spelled out. This is probably a term used within Artificial_Intelligence. Other times i must be careful not to misunderstand people for computer terminals: they are not programable. User:Akidd_dublin 9 may 2006

• Here you go again. I have absolutely no idea what any of this paragraph is supposed to mean. I have a great deal of personal experience in communicating with people who are speaking English as a second language, but they usually make more sense than you¹. If you have reworked articles according to your comprehension of English, those articles need to be repaired post-haste. I have looked at your edits in Yahoo! Groups, for instance, and they are profoundly illiterate, with errors of comprehension, expression, and duplication. Fnarf999 00:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know. The duplication does not matter, and is even required. Some people absolute dislike tables. Otherwise pushing the data into sentences looks bad. At least i can emulate sentences from books i have read. This does not always meet the low quality, or reverse, university requirement of some. ¹What you spell could be interpreted as personal attack. Probably it is enough writing for a while. If you recognize something personal, unrelated of my writing, you don't have to keep it. If you don't know Yahoo! groups, then you should not edit it, except correcting spelling. I have not written the sentences (in that article), that's the way i found it. ¹Some native americans wrote remarkable style/sentences here on wikipedia. We leave it at this point. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a real reason for removal (no advert), Aztec Calendar.
Do you have anything to do with this article? You might consider to take a look the village pump (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)), real social dynamics, and try to bite them for deletion. It gets deleted after a week automatically. If you do not like this writing, then please refrain from attacking my edits.
If you just attack my edits, and do not write to my talk page, i do not believe that's the way it goes here.
You are welcome to express your concerns about bad edits there: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), or where it suits otherwise (Wikipedia:Village_pump).
If you continiue attacking my edits, i am going to write about you, there.
This has no threat meaning, but it looks you really browsed a list of contributions, which i created myself... Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The reasons for removal are simple: you're not supposed to insert external links to web pages that you yourself have created. It's immaterial whether there are "adverts" in the page. If the information in your page is compact, interesting, valuable, and not original research, then it belongs in the page, not elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a collection of links.Fnarf999 15:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What on earth does "no threat meaning" mean? That's not English. And frankly it does sound like some kind of threat, of what I can't imagine. I did browse your contributions, because I stumbled across a couple of them that indicated a stylistic problem which I have described elsewhere. You insist on arguing small inconsequential points that make no sense. For example, in Talk:Red hair, the business about the Gaiety Theatre and Cockney slang -- the information you added is both wrong and completely irrelevant -- as irrelevant as a recipe for ginger cookies would have been. Wikipedia is not nonsense.Fnarf999 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i caused that some passages of the Red_hair article vanished overnight. It made me both happy, and a bit of sad for the author. But wikipedia is not a platform for the politics of "special population groups", especially spreading their data into various articles. The formula means, i do not have an intention of creating threads against anyone. If the village pump is used for arguments, this is much better: after 7 days it gets deleted automatically.

Wikipedia is not a link directory. An article is allowed to have a tiny link section, see matsuri, even more of it makes sense. It is difficult to copy my calendar table into the article, anyway if i keep the color coding it looks very remarkable. This is legal (to use html), but there is recommendation to use it sparingly.

I don't want to argue about the Gaiety_Theatre stuff anymore. It is gone from the article. I believe its name has something to do with the original french word. They aren't q-uea at all. I really try to do correct spelling/grammar, and reading your critics, i try my best (see superstition, i plan to rewrite it). Lucky for me you have produced cooled down replies, and not more forest-fire.User:Akidd_dublin

• • I'm sorry, Akidd dublin, I've tried, but I really can't make any sense out of the things you say. What is q-uea? What made you originally think that an article about red hair was a good place to speculate about the origin of the Gaiety Theatre in Dublin? You ask others to check a dictionary, but you refuse to read or understand one yourself: the origin of the word "gay" in either of its primary meanings is (a) not in dispute by rational persons; (b) not connected with the Gaiety Theatre in any way shape or form and (c) not connected with RED HAIR in any way shape or form. I have no idea what you are referring to by "the formula" or "special population groups". Your inability or refusal to communicate by use of English as she is spoken is extremely frustrating to me, as it means I cannot convey to you why your edits are so poor. But poor they are. Fnarf999 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times people wrote this un-word? A "special population group" was that sentence of a boygroup representative, giving an interview answer "Our products are not designed for special population groups". It is not really required to state the preceeding question, is it? Try a dictionary to understand this word better: dictionary.reference.com. I do not deserve this discussion, neither do articles like [Red_hair] do deserve defame composed of ghey things. It would make more sense to link to skeletor and the hulk. Even if it does not annoy, it really would be non-sense. They plan to coca-colonize everything.

Some countries do not do ghey' topics in their internet, and that's where i am relating from. The way it is looks great disrepair to me, even if i am a non-native of North America. It was my goal to get it removed from the article, and this has happened, So what? If you see a nike advert showing a redhead person, please put it to the article.

I do not like it (see The Hulk) to get attributes like inabillity attached. I have explained the population groups well enough. If you are not happy with this long writing, then delete it.

I'm sorry, Akidd dublin, I've tried, but I really can't make any sense out of the things you say. What is q-uea? see MEOW, BOW-WOW and GWAO. Try to spell until understanding possible. How about WAGO (spelled that way in a television game) Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was not my writing. It has not bothered my neither. Can we try to write few line only (if at all). I do not have the time to go through the article again.
---I have put a new writing to the village pump, and created a page, where anyone can add examples for weak language. Like the passage you edited out from Yahoo! Groups. That's neither right nor wrong, if you feel need be. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you add off-topic or repetitive nonsense, these edits must be removed - looks like high-school. sorry i am not high-school. possibly i would add off-topic or repetitive nonsense in the future. your are not my parent. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 17:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. High school? I agree, I am not your parent. That is what is so frustrating about my complete failure to communicate with you. Fnarf999 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to communicate with you, to get you to see where your numerous mistakes lie.

Let us try to be members of one and the same community? You suggest numerous mistakes, but i am happy to see you are attempting to communicate seriously. I have done some tests at www.psychologytoday.com - they are free. It is the leading american psychology magazine. It has helped me. Probably it helps you too - to understand others better. If you put my edit mistakes to that page (in the user space), i can try no to repeat the mistakes. I am sorry for any misunderstanding. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 18:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need psychological testing, especially not from a stupid mass-market magazine (PT is not the "leading american psychology magazine"). But if you want examples, start with the summary of your last contribution: what does i do look ordinary nike mean? It's not an English sentence. I never said anything about the way you look, I have no earthly idea or interest in what you look like and I cannot fathom why you would bring it up. Fnarf999 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read.

The descision if you need this is, is up to you. If you write you don't, then you don't. Guess american HipHop isn't correct english as well. You can consider how i look (before writing about me), because it is not too bad.

I am not saying you need psych testing. I have only said: It helped many. The online tests are free of charge. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to explain what American hip-hop has to do with this discussion. If you are suggesting that hip-hop justifies non-Standard English in Wikipedia, you are wrong.Fnarf999 17:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested to work together with you right now.
I would like to let you know, that i do not display, or even edit, the articles you contribute to.
Unless You, i am not getting personal.
I would like to ask you politely, not to edit articles (especially you found through my user space) which you do not have a full understanding of.
You have explictely prooved rude behaviour and lack of sense by one of your last edits. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 13:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to my edit to [[matsuri]. What I did was remove an inappropriate html table of links that you added to an already link-heavy article. There were 14 external links in the article, and nine of them were in your table. You have been told many times that Wikipedia is not a link farm. Please notice that after you reverted my edit, an administrator immediately wiped out all of your links as well as several of the others.

Your edits to matsuri are inappropriate to Wikipedia. One doesn't have to know anything about matsuri to see that or to correct it. Fnarf999 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't alone here. If other people like your contribution, that's not my affair. I would like you to take back this expression, and refrain from further expressions in that style. Written reply not neccessary. What you write speaks on it's own, without knowing your age group. Probably someone else can explain it to you. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Akidd dublin (talk) vandalised comments that you left for him, changing the words that you left. I reverted the vandalism but thought you should be kept aware. --Yamla 14:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. While I sympathise with the fustration of dealing with the language difficulty issues, I think it would be better if you deleted the sub page User_talk:Fnarf999/Akidd, as creating a page dedicatated to issues with one user is unhelpful to fostering a good enviornment, in the same way that User:Akidd dublin/cleanup/they toldme wasn't. As this page was deleted by creator request, I suggest that you do the same. Regards, MartinRe 16:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, and I will do so immediately. I created it as a reference to the many remarks of his, but I shouldn't have created it in Wikipedia. I'll take it offline. Fnarf999 17:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that's cool. Thanks. MartinRe 17:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup, as per your request on another talk page, to delete a page without an Afd, you can use the speedy delete process (see WP:CSD for what criteria this can be used for) In this case, all you have to do is add ((db|owner request)) to the page, and an admin will drop by shortly and delete it. (Ps I'm not an admin myself) Regards, MartinRe 17:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This is not related to wikipedia anymore) You are not neccessarily entitled to write about individuals. You do not own one line of my weblog. You are welcome to visit it/to publish the address of it, if you believe this makes sense. I would like to let you know, that Akidd_dublin is not longer taking communication. It has been abandoned. It is not because your unwanted communication. I had it in mind before that. It is not required that you safeguard my new articles, as it looks you are still new nere. At this place, i would like to discourage you to put further effort into the affair (i assume called VENDETTA by you), and the subject of evealuting my personal cyberspace (websites). You can do so (this means you are entitled to scroll my websites) within the TOS (terms of service) of your internet provider, of yahoo! inc., and other service providers. I hope there is no mistake within this decleration of non-interest, no-belong etc. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 18:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sure, anything you say, Yy-bo. No mistake at all. But, you know, if you don't want people to read your blog, you shouldn't put it on the internet. 24.22.172.60 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)24.22.172.60 18:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this pointless. People (in north america) can put their troubles to a weblog. I have desgined it to be un-personal. I do not invite fnarf999 to my new account. i can put other things to my weblog. i can put nearly anything to my weblog. it does not have to play wikipedia. personal worries should not carry one here. I have put my blog on the net. People can read it. It is not written for anyone. I have written two new articles. you (IP) do not have much claims about these new blog articles. just because they are not talking about you.

I suggest you write an own weblog. I am not taking ADDITIONAL TALK about the topics which were touched. You are not invited to my blog. I can switch off comments. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you don't have to be in North America to write a blog! May I just point out that you are commenting HERE on my talk page, not on your blog, and I am responding to you HERE, not on your blog. Have I left comments on your blog? No.

If you have intelligible, constructive comments to make, make them. Fnarf999 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fnarf999, I am sorry for what happened. I have changed my user account, and that's all I can do for now. I have found this today: Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot. I have missed to do so. You are welcome to read my WEBLOG. However, it is indeed not USA, but UK (United Kingdom). You have been an inspiration for me to make (write) new entries. They are not personal, and not meant to hurt anyone. I am a friendly person. However i consider Akidd_dublin as abandoned. I just thought it suitable for you (or anyone else) to put communication to a blog. I can really write non-sense on my blog, and i do not hurt policies. Again, i do not wish to have worries with you, or anyone else. I do not mind BBS history. My english is not impossible to understand. It is not full of mistakes. My new articles are not unsuitable in style, quality. They are not non-sense.
  
• I am sorry for any non-sense, and would like to express hope, that people improve their personality, and that people may come to a better understanding of others. I do not take what happened personally. I will take more care using my new account. If you know anything about my new articles, then you can try TO ADD to them. However i do not explicitely invite you. The possibility to blog indeed differs from country to country! American's have archieved a high level of publicing democrazy. Some countries don't. Most new web services are introduced to American's. That's the meaning, it has nothing to do with your person, your edits to other articles i never have seen. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 13:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your account certainly is busy for one that's been "abandoned". Akidd, I have never attacked you personally. I have only attacked your specific editing and other writing. Your English is, in fact, impossible for others to understand. I have seen dozens of examples of edits by you that others could not make any sense of. In some cases your edits have required reverting back to equally poor or even inaccurate versions simply because your version, while technically correct, was not understandable. You have also created many new pages that are not up to Wikipedia standards, or any standards. And these problems are caused not by your lack of understanding but by your lack of English skills.

• I've followed this situation and painfully reviewed his edits. I share your frustration and wish he could be reasoned with. There's no doubt however that Akidd has the potential to be a useful contributor (even if he should probably be working over at Japanese Wikipedia, or whatever his native language is), and in the wiki spirit we should try to do whatever we can to defuse the situation and see if we can reform him. With that in mind it would probably be best for you to limit or eliminate your interaction with him completely as soon as possible -- not because you've realy done anything wrong but just because it seems like there's little to be gained other than more personal attacks if you both continue. — GT 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest. I quite agree with your answer. Within this text you find some translation in english linguage of a social approche, made by a specialist of social things.[Michel Anteby]. In fact, it is true that is applying ( for a long time ) to workers in mechanics. If you read my page travail en perruque in french Wikipédia, you will discover it is done todays in software industry ( le travail en perruque chez Apple). If you want to write something with the french expression, you can. But, except making some copies at work at your office, don't tell me it's only a french technique ! It is a mondial pratique ! But chut...! It is a secret. A Polichinelle secret...

I hope you will make something, even with the french words. Bye. --Barbetorte 17:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fnarf999. User:Yy-bo has requested a mediation about some disagreements you have had. You can find it here. I am mediating the case, which means I am willing to look at both sides and try to figure out what is going on and how we can resolve the impasse. Please feel free to comment under "discussion" on the mediation page. Cheers, David L Rattigan 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helping your case was no problem. Yy-bo can't seem to admit his language difficulties. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments about Edgovan20. While he is certainly engaging in personal attacks against me and has in the past used personal attacks on other people, I'm boundlessly optimistic in my hopes that he'll settle down now. If I catch him making any further personal attacks, I'll go for a block at that point. For now, though, I'm hoping he can be satisfied with his rather strange comments on his user page and talk page. Thanks, though, I'll certainly call on you if he steps up his attacks again. --Yamla 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fnarf999,

Good Call! i think you're right about the capital. This article started because i wasn't sure what these things were are started searching the internet for info. There is no article on conifer aphids either. I have considered doing a large writing on Quadrupole Ion traps, my area of research in undergrad, but i've always liked bio myself.

My largest writing before that is in lassa fever, under a vaccine developped at USAMRIID. P. Jahrling gets mention in the Hot Zone and Demon in the Freezer by Richard Preston.

I am a science B.Sc. from Calgary. (Dan 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I am not happy with one or two of the images. They need improvement. I could capture better examples. There is no article on Cooley Spruce either...

The problem with this image is that it, strictly speaking, may not be a tuff from adelges cooleyi. Although it is a good picture of my thumb. ;-) |1|center)) If you see: [1] it is hard to tell.

If i remember to, i can try and get a shot of what the aphids look like before the leave the galls, like the cross section shown here: [2]

(Dan 20:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. I wanted to thank you for all your work on football articles, most especially the World cup related ones. I noticed you created a lot of missing articles for goalscorers of the earliest world cups. Keep up the good work, and let me know if I can be of any assistance. Cheers - ChaChaFut 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are in Seattle, USA. You are, therefore, over 5000 miles from the Sankey Canal, in England. I am half a mile from the Sankey Canal, in England, and have been for the past forty nine years. I see the signs which say 'The Sankey Canal' every day. I KNOW what the Sankey Canal is OFFICIALLY called. I have read the recorded history of the Sankey Canal, from it's survey in 1754 onwards. The St.Helens canal referred to, is actually the St.Helens Branch, an extra length of canal built some eighteen years after the Sankey Canal first opened, joining St.Helens to the Sankey Canal. The Ordnance Survey may refer to the St.Helens canal on their maps due to assumption, caused by their reference to personally opinionated writings, like Wikipedia has become. You, yourself, only know what you have read, and that is 'St.Helens Canal', and so do a lot of other people, worldwide. Until the true facts are shown, people all over the world, who know no better, will all believe the wrong information. The same thing happens with much more important matters than the name of a canal, due to people believing what they read, without question. I disagree strongly with your comment ... "It is more important to be verifiable than it is to be correct". Also, American English is gramatically different to English, so please refrain from correcting script which is only wrong by opinion.

Please take a look at a site by some local enthusiasts, the 'Sankey Canal Restoration Society', http://www.scars.org.uk Some of the things they say on there are, again, not true fact but are very close. May I say that the site contains 'truisms' ?

• Let's face it. You just haven't a clue about the Sankey Canal, have you? I would suggest that you stick to what you know in future. The Sankey Navigation was passed as an Act of Parliament in 1754 giving rights to construct a navigable watercourse along the Sankey Brook. Permission was granted and was titled the Sankey Navigation Act. On it's opening, the name was changed to Sankey Canal as it was constructed alongside the Sankey Brook instead of along the same course. These facts are historically recorded. I can appreciate your belief in the O.S. but, unfortunately, they are WRONG in this case. You see, people will always believe what they read, thinking it is fact. The Sankey Canal is claimed to be the first canal in Britain on many sites, however it was not. The Bridgewater Canal is also claimed to be the first canal in Britain, again it is not. But people believe these things, simply because they are repeatedly given the same, wrong, information. Wikipedia is FULL of false facts and cannot be taken seriously. I have tried to put these right, but only what I KNOW is right, ie. articles about my immediate area. I wouldn't attempt to try to tell YOU anything about Seattle, as I have never been there and know nothing about the place. Finally, I couldn't care less what the O.S. call the canal, it's OFFICIAL TITLE is the 'Sankey Canal'. 80.192.242.187 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

AND, THE WAY YOU REFER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SANKEY CANAL RESTORATION SOCIETY AS A 'COLLECTION OF CRANKS WHO GET ANNOYED AT IT BEING CALLED THE ST.HELENS CANAL' IS VERY CHILDLIKE. THE ONLY REASON THAT I HAVE CORRECTED THE NAME IS THAT IT IS WRONG. LIKE I SAID EARLIER, STICK TO WHAT YOU KNOW. YOU SEEM TO BE SOMEONE WHO KNOWS A LOT ABOUT A LITTLE AND LITTLE ABOUT A LOT. ARROGANT SPRINGS TO MIND. 80.192.242.187 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

• I don't know why you consider HISTORICALLY RECORDED FACT, which is recorded in British Parliamentary history, to be 'Point of View'. It is clearly not 'Point of View', it is the difference in being RIGHT or WRONG and 'Sankey Canal' is the correct, officially recorded name for that canal. IT IS THE LIKES OF YOU, WITH YOUR ARROGANT ATTITUDE AND YOUR '"It is more important to be verifiable than it is to be correct"' STATEMENT, THAT MAKES 'WIKIPEDIA' FULL OF FALSE FACTS. If, as you say, you are not interested in what the canal is called, why have you got involved in the article in the first place? Prick! 80.192.242.187 12:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

I have been perusing your articles and contributions and cannot fail to notice a somewhat HOMOSEXUAL theme. You're not a GAY, are you?

Oh, for Christ's sake. What are you, eight years old? Go away. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This last edit [3] further proves to me he is here for little more than trolling purposes. I can see no good reason for him not to be blocked. MRSC • Talk 07:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some interesting points. However, his conduct is totally unnaceptable according to community guidelines. A recap of the last ten days:

• uncivil, offensive 'cockle' comment
• shouting offensive, ignoring references, alluding to others that do not exist
• changing meaning of text to something other than the citation
• ignoring talk page discussions, adding bogus references
• referring to other editors as 'the clowns', while adding factually inaccurate information
• adding inaccuracy
• uncivil rant to Galloglass
• assurance to Regan123 that no inaccuracies have been added
• removing references
• addition of inaccuracies
• addition of inaccuracies
• argument to Galloglass about postal system (his arguments are the opposite to Royal Mail sources)
• adding inaccuracies
• adding inaccuracies, edit summary says opposite to Royal Mail sources
• adding inaccuracies, edit summary says opposite to Royal Mail sources
• adding inaccuracies
• adding inaccuracies
• vandalising Fnarf999 page, multiple obscene references to 'bumming', 'homosexual', 'masturbating' etc.
• vandalising Fnarf999 page
• vandalising Fnarf999 page
• vandalising Fnarf999 page, multiple obscene references to 'homosexual', 'masturbating' etc.
• adding nonsense and 3RR
• adding nonsense
• uncivil 'prick' comment
• adding inaccuracies, false claim about Royal Mail publications
• uncivil, accuse Fnarf999 of being gay/homosexual
• shouting, uncivil
• shouting, uncivil
• uncivil

Anyone in the world may edit Wikipedia, however, if the vast majority of their edits are of this nature, despite repeated attempts to reason with them and warnings, then they should be blocked. MRSC • Talk 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is a fair summary. I have a copy of the guide and have used it as a source for WN postal area. Also it is worth noting that no Wikipedia articles, no matter who has edited them, can be used as a source. MRSC • Talk 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • But, YOU have just used Wikipedia as a source!!!!!!! Wikipedia, then, is in DIRECT CONFLICT of Wikipedia, so is Wikipedia a RELIABLE SOURCE ? list of postal districts in the united kingdom 80.192.242.187 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

________________________

• No wonder I'm get angry with you lot! You are, again, saying that I add 'inaccuracies' and 'nonsense', when what I added, and you are showing, is all TRUTH.

Ashton in Makerfield IS a 'post town' within the WN (wigan) postal area, the postcode letters (WN) do NOT define the post 'town'.

Adding 'Bogus' references?????? This is the reference you mean? .... list of postal districts in the united kingdom... That is on Wikipedia and clearly states that the WN (wigan) postal area is divided into four 'post towns', Ashton in Makerfield being one of them, just like the Royal Mail say it is. Are you saying that Wikipedia is WRONG? If you think it is, then CORRECT it!

Danny Tickle WAS born in Golborne NOT in Wigan. FACT! *I also added a reference showing this 'true' fact but you seem to be offended by it, so have removed it every time it is put on the article.

The 'OFFICIAL', 'HISTORICALLY RECORDED' name for the Sankey Canal IS the 'Sankey Canal and NOT the St.Helens canal, no matter what YOU think!

The 'Sankey Viaduct' is 'OFFICIALLY', 'HISTORICALLY RECORDED' as being built in EARLESTOWN and it IS in BOTH the St.Helens Borough (as is now) and the Warrington Borough. This is because it straddles the Sankey Brook, which is the ACCEPTED boundary which separates the two boroughs AND the 'ceremonial counties' of Cheshire and Merseyside. *Again, I have provided a reference to show this but you continue to remove it.

You mention 'offensive' ? That's RICH considering all I say to Galloglass is in reaction to being insulted, in an self esteemed manner, and refered to, by him, as being 'THICK'.

And so it goes, that YOU (MRSC)and YOU (Galloglass) have taken a 'PERSONAL' vendetta against ANYTHING I put on Wikipedia, even though it's TRUE and you know it's TRUE! It's so childlike! 80.192.242.187 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH. __________[reply]

• BEWARE. The editor MRSC has, predictably, been to a Wikipedia article titled 'List of Postal Districts in the United Kingdom' and PURPOSELY removed Ashton in Makerfield from the list of Post Towns in the WN area, in order to strengthen the argument on his side. Nasty trick! 80.192.242.187 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

There is nothing to beware. The Wikipedia article in question doesn't matter. The Royal Mail matters. The Royal Mail says "WIGAN". \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • There's nothing infuriates me more than when someone like YOU says that 'the Wikipedia articles which you cite don't exist'. What do you mean by that? They exist on MY screen, and the references are copied and pasted onto the article, so they should be easily found. 80.192.242.187 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Try this ... [[4]] that will show you where the Sankey Viaduct IS and will also show you the name of the canal it straddles. And the brook.

Please don't change the subject; your comments are very confusing. I'm not talking about the viaduct or the canal or the brook. I'm talking about list of postal districts in the united kingdom/R-Z. See how that link is red? The article you are linking to doesn't exist. I'm sure you know what you mean, but you have to be able to explain it to others. As for how infuriated you get or what causes it, that sounds like a medical problem to me, not a Wikipedian one. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is what I put on MRSC's talk page ....

• It was rather PREDICTABLE that you have been to the Article: 'List of Postal Districts in the United Kingdom/R-Z', and REMOVED Ashton in Makerfield from the Post Town List!!!!!!!

If you have to revert to DIRTY TRICKS to win an argument you are NOT A FIT PERSON to be editing Wikipedia! 80.192.242.187 20:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Again predictably, he removed it. Jemmy.

It's a personal attack. Can't you see that? You accused him of "dirty tricks". That's not appropriate. An edit such as he made is either valid or invalid; even if he's completely wrong it's not a "dirty trick". In fact, he is not wrong, and you STILL have not produced any evidence whatsoever for your claim that Ashton in Makerfield is a post town. On the other hand, the Royal Mail says it is not. Why should it remain in that list again? See what I'm getting at? SHOW SOME EVIDENCE. That's all we want. If you can produce a current, non-superceded official RM document that says it is, do so immediately. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I HAVE given evidence of Ashton in Makerfield being a post town. I have provided YOU with the link to see. It's was wikipedia article, which CLEARLY contained Ashton in Makerfield as a podt town, 'BEFORE' MRSC removed it! Now, are wikipedia articles to be believed? That article had Ashton in Makerfield listed as a post town for quite some time. MRSC has been through the same article and removed other 'post towns'. Jemmy. list of postal areas in the united kingdom/R-Z

• • We've been over this before. Wikipedia articles are not evidence. Come on, man, think about it! You're asking for this article to be a source, but it contradicts you! It says Ashton in Makerfield is not a post town. You need a SOURCE. If you can't come up with a source you need to find something better to do with your time. In the meantime: Ashton in Makerfield is not a postal town. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add a note here explaining what has happened. Also give a few diffs for evidence. MRSC • Talk 06:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been deleting that crap for a very long time. I draw the lines at the alto article where I'm attempting to source the claims as a trial of its possibilities. I never noticed that addition to the baritone article but I have now deleted it. Thank you for pointing it out. I have deleted much OR. Most significantly from the whistle register article for which I drew the wrath of what I assume to be about 5 very annoyed angsty adolescents, although the article had several lovely pleasant adult contributors too. Your best bet is to delete it, and tell me if it starts an edit war, I've been doing this a loooooooooooooong time now and I have made progress, and I have skillz getting it removed. Forcing them to source it works occasionally too. It did with Grace Jones. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fnarf999. I have noticed your recent work on the Bryn (Metropolitan Borough of Wigan) article and would be grateful if you would assist me (and others) on the rest of the article's concerning the Wigan area. I am attempting to make a concerted effort to bring all of the articles in this category up to a high standard as we have had significant problems with these in the past. I am aware of another experienced editor called Regan123 who is currently working on the articles and who's edits are excellent. I believe that if we are able to build a small community of regular editors for the Wigan articles we can achieve the goal of good article status. Thanks.Man2 11:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Hi Fnarf999, thanks for your reply. I would be very grateful if you could take a look at the all the article's for the Borough of Wigan (i.e. Wigan itself, Orrell, Ince, Pemberton etc etc) and get back to me with any areas you feel need improvement. I am aware of the editor that you had a slight problem with, I too experienced difficulty with him in the past. Your point about local knowledge is a key one. As a resident of Wigan I have particular interest in the Orrell(Greater Manchester) article have have worked extensively on it. We have had several problems in the past regarding what are and what are not 'suburbs' of the town. I must confess that I am a staunch advocate of the area being referred to as a suburb of Wigan for a plethora of reasons. Wigan MBC (the local council) do not classify the area as anything other than a component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan and part of the 'Wigan Urban Area', hence the difficulty in classification. Currently the articles introduction reads "Orrell is an area and residential suburb in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan" and this appears to be accepted by all. I would delighted to hear your opinion's on the matter and any others you feel require addressing and would again be grateful if you would guide me through the process of improving the article's. Thanks. Man2 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

Fnarf999, I have left a reply to your note on the Sankey Canal discussion page. 80.192.242.187 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

• Here's what you posted on my talkpage .....

'I guess I don't understand what it is you want. The article already says it was built as the Sankey Canal, and that sections were added to it later. If you're suggesting they are separate and unrelated bodies of water (or former water in some cases), I can't buy that. It's one canal, originally the Sankey Canal, later added on to St Helens, now widely referred to as the St Helens canal AND the Sankey Canal. What's the problem?'

Here's my answer. When someone (YOU) repeatedly asks for verification to prove a point, I will give verification. When someone tells me that they have never seen the canal referred to as the Sankey Canal, I will do my best to provide them with a source. You have even repeated here what I wrote in the first place, telling me what I told you. I have never disputed the St.Helens canal, because I know it exists, but the Sankey Canal IS the Sankey Canal and the St.Helens canal joined onto it. Like two differently named streets joining onto each other, at a junction. That's not hard to understand, is it? And I haven't got a problem. 80.192.242.187 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Hi Fnarf999, thanks for your reply. I agree, I highly doubt a "Royal Board of Suburb Allocation" has or ever will exist, but it would solve several disputes lol. We should possibly think of raising that to someone in government! lol. I by no means intended to imply that you needed to be drawn into the debate regarding the suburbs of Wigan and apologise if that is how it appeared. I simply intended to give you an indication of the kind of debate we are having regarding the area articles and hope that you could use your experience to help in any way you can. Keep up the good work!. Thanks again.Man2 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• This user ..... 84.71.124.59 is probably user Man2 and will be used, by him, to put the words W-I-G-A-N or 'of wigan', or the phrase 'Metropolitan Borough of Wigan' on as many articles as possible, avoiding the 3RR rule. 80.192.242.187 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Hi Fnarf999, can I just ensure that everyone understands that I had forgotten to sign in hence the reason my IP was showing, JemmyH is wrong, it is not a 'sock puppet'. (Thanks for the support on the talk page by the way). The aforementioned JemmyH is quite a character. He has caused untold disagreements in the past with a number of editors. The guy clearly has a good local (Wigan) knowledge and can at times articulate his arguments quite well, it is such a shame that he wastes himself on futile disagreements and removing valid citations from edits to make his opinion fit. I would have liked to have been able to include him in the community of regular Wigan articles editors, but alas, I fear he is a lost cause.Man2 22:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Man2[reply]

• This ManKnowitall can edit as much as he likes. But, if I see anything that is not 'correct', you will all be told. It is pointless to have untruthes on an encyclopaedic article, just for the sake of promoting the name W-I-G-A-N. 80.192.242.187 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.[reply]

Answer to Fnarf999's comment .... Also on 84.71.124.59's talk page (not Man2's talk page) ....

'It seems very strange that he only 'forgets to sign in' when he's following me and reverting all my edits in favour of his Wigan inclusions. 80.192.242.187 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) JemmyH.'[reply]

Hi, seeing you are interested in football this is an invitation to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you were the one who created the article for Gustav Wetterström. Do you happen to know if he's still alive or not? Cheers, CP 21:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured it out myself. Cheers, CP 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For great work in upholding accuracy. Ty 07:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?. Ty 07:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. All that work on football and you get a barnstar for art! Ty 07:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cool! Happy birthday...! Ty 08:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cher Doll Records: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find (2) newspaper or magazine articles about this label I believe it could be saved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've come here to request some print sources, which you indicated could be found. I have added web cites to the article. Ty 05:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fnarf999, you wrote

I have requested POV assistance on the Frank Chopp article due to your repeated insistence on vandalizing his article with extreme POV statements, untruths, and half truths. Please do not edit this article if you are unable to refrain from POV. No, I am not Frank Chopp.

I have not vandalized the article. You must have me confused with someone else. I made a total of four contributions to the article and none of them were vandalism. All I have done is to add a wikilink at 03:07, 8 December 2009 and at 12:07, 16:48, and 16:57 16 November 2009, I added a wikilink, added a reference and added the references section. How can I help you improve the article? I can help you with POV on the article if you need.  kgrr ^talk 04:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fnarf999, I have substantially re-structured the Frank Chopp article. Could you give me a hand with it? We need to find references for what is marked with a ((fact)) tag. If we can't find them, the sentences must be deleted. Put balancing POV in the same section.  kgrr ^talk 21:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fnarf999, Thanks for the work! I looked at your changes. Overall, it's going in the right direction and taking shape.

• The Fiscal policy section - I have started to source the information. I will contribute it when it's ready.
• The Legalization of Marijuana section is still a little thin. It probably needs a couple of more sentences on the subject. It probably needs to be lower in the list.
• The Homeowner bill of rights. This needs to be sown together to form a solid paragraph.
• The viaduct section looks pretty good. It needs just a little re-wording to tighten it up. It needs to be structured so that the three different positions are clear - His elevated plan versus, surface and big dig tunnel for balance.
• We need a section on his position on Retro refrom. Mow that the Wyman report is out, this will become a bigger issue again this next spring.
• In legislative successes, we should find some more items. Certainly Progressives like me cheer his initiative to establishing a living wage is definitely a success story, others see it as a complete small business blunder. There should be material to support both sides.

Give it some time, it will evolve into a nice article.  kgrr ^talk 19:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kate Lindsey, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.seattleopera.org/bios/index.aspx?name=kate_lindsey. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kate Lindsey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding ((hangon)) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a goddamn minute here, OK? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fnarf999! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 964 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the list:

1. Gabriela Beňačková - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Inge Borkh - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Josef Zeman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Ernst Lörtscher - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

footballers pioneers singers

Thank you for quality articles on historic footballers such as Émile Veinante, on pioneers such as William Grose (black Seattle pioneer), and on opera singers such as Inge Borkh and Reri Grist, for cleaning-up FIFA World Cups, - Steve, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

We miss you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2011 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]