User talk:Fabartus/Archive12

Greek mythology

You recently made some edits to the articles for Twelve Olympians and Homeric Hymns because you thought it was strange that they were implying that Hesiod wrote of the Titans but not of the Olympians. They weren't implying that. He wrote about the Olympians, but he didn't use the term "the Twelve Olympians." That's a specific subset of the Olympians.

So I reverted your edits to those two articles. If you also made a similar edit to the article for Titans (mythology) then that should be reverted too. Although I think you might not've made a similar edit to that article, even though the edits you made to the other articles were about that article. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Twelve Olympians (edit talk links history) and Homeric Hymns (edit talk links history)and Titan (mythology) (edit talk links history)

0) I didn't think it strange, I found it to be confusing, contradictory, and poorly handled across articles. In short, the extant phrasing in both articles created a confusion... which I (in my ignorance) attempted to edit away. I made no changes to the Titans page, btw.

1) That's why the fact tag... in Homeric Hymns — I was looking for an expert to address the ambiguity and confusions... hope you fixed up the language so is preventive of another misinterpretation. Cross-topic integration is an important thing to keep in mind with writing between articles which link--and are likely to be cross read by our customers.

ASIDE: The timing on these classical studies and/or antiquities articles is most often too weasel worded in general. Stating a date range like "7th cen. BC" is subject to wide misunderstanding... particularly when the timespan is BCE...
better to augment with an appropriate parenthetical date range with appropriate "at the earliest", "before ...", "around ...", "no later than ...", and such non-academic plain language as educates etc.
A certain amount of dumbing-down so stuff is readable (and understandable, because of context) by the general population is a good thing... our mission, I figure.

2) The distinction between Olympians and twelve Olympians is I suspect too subtle and specialized for reliance on such that the readers are following the specialist mindset. I follow it as someone with at least half-a-dozen mythology references on my bookshelves, but the average lay reader isn't going to have those, or my lifelong interests... so the article needs clarified if you mean to make the distinction. Normally, if worthy, that would and should require a separate article with prominent disambig crosslink at the page top. Somehow, I don't figure any article on Minor Olympians is coming any day soon... Is there a list article covering such? list of Olympians strikes out... but... THAT would be one good way to cover that need, and be encyclopedic to boot. We should have one, I conclude.

3) Most of us would agree that the Olympians disambig page, which links to that Twelve Olympians page also needs further separate delineation of your very technical distinction . That would also need handled on the 'twelve Olympians' page up in the intro so to set in place for us and to us in the general population such picayune specialty knowledge.

(before closing, I made a stab at some disambiguation on this... by altering the introduced and offending phrase I'd added to accommodate your technical distinction as I perceive it all... but by all means pee in it as needed if I'm off a bit with my guesswork) (I began that with a dablink para, but the topic needs handled in the article body--up high somewhere.) In short, wikipedia is not currently covering the distinction between the terms as you know them. I, on the other hand, am acting to clarify to all and sundry.

4) Consequently, I reverted your reverts of my three edits on 'twelve Olympians' as wholly lazy and in appropriate. A close examination therein will reveal the sole text change made was to work in Olympians (as just discussed above) because of the linkages issues (and ignorance... I really don't care if there were 12 or 200... but references to Olympians... should definitely connect and mention the twelve which are usually those connoted! The 1500 minor nature sprites aren't of general interest outside kids cartoons and Charmed scripts! <g>).

The other changes I made were whitespace and formatting with the two bulleted lists, plus the fact tag... but since I was revamping format and material I specifically made stepwise iterative changes vice one biggie... which would have been what I did were it one of my normal topic areas. (My saves are generally substantial changes. 20 small changes by one editor is not something I like to see.)

5) Mutual respect would require better handling of my time involvement, and a closer inspection of the changes. Thanks, however, for the notice on my talk. Suggest with successive changes like that you evaluate them one by one, as they appear in the current text... note the use of a few typing aid templates and spacing out of cites made the diffs look far worse than the actual changes that occurred.

The fact tag should have been cleared in a section edit locally.
The best (and most courteous to all) way would be to comment it out, with a dated terse reason why it's inappropriate or handled.
That sets the record in place for other people to see the diffs... and obviates the need for a separate talk handling the issue most of the time.
In short, is a highly courteous practice when you realize literally dozens of people might be looking at diffs from their watchlists...

6) In the same vein as a better practice... Cites are a pain to work around with future diffs since far more seems to change if they aren't broken into linefeed terminated separate lines... The easiest prophylactic on that is to terminate all of them using '>' so it's on a different line. Repetitions of named cites, can do the same with '/>', though that seems unnecessary most of the time—unless two or three cites are used at the same point. As a general technical matter, wikimarkup's HTML is quite tolerant of whitespace padding before the closing of any HTML tag command.

By the same token, breaking up the contents in cites templates onto some block of separate lines aids editing in the future (Text and refs aren't blending together) and shorten lines so actual changes can be seen more clearly.
Lastly, '}}' in such can be spaced down with several linefeeds... creating separation. Adding extra pipes in a template is also harmless.

You'll want to recheck "the Olympians"... but the text, not a diff... This is a good case for needing a character block diff capability... being able to see whitespace changes as only an added linefeed, or so show the inserted words not processed in a line by line confused block where the whole shows red vice an inserted word AND the linefeed(s), etc., would have shown there weren't big changes there. Best regards // FrankB 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits again. I'm not entirely sure what you were attempting to do with them. And I didn't follow your thousand word rant on the talk page either. What I do know is this: Your edit seemed to imply that the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular were the same thing. I reverted your edit and explained to you that they were different. Then you made another edit that again seemed to wrongly imply that the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular were the same thing. I'm not sure why you keep implying that, even after I've explained to you that it's not true. You might be right that the articles should be more explicit in its distinction between the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular. But that's no reason to seem to imply that they're the same thing. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are making a distinction as if a scholar... not writing the article focused to and for the lay people — your writings need to explain EXACTLY THAT DIFFERENCE as I tried to do... to your dissatisfaction. Fine, I leave it in your hands, but the article or our overall coverage is missing the overall context. Olympians has to handle the rest of the pack — whatever scholarship calls them. Since your article is the closest detailed article with that title, and is further on point... IMHO, you're only doing a partial job. It's not satisfactory at all.

I've been "IN TO" to reading about mythology my whole life, and am pushing retirement age and until running across you, have never heard of the distinction you are making. Not many people have one, much less multiple mythological reference works, and my bookshelves have at least six. In short, you are living in a very different world than the one this encyclopedia is supposed to serve if you can write about any topic in the area I haven't ever heard of even once.

If you want to cover the Olympians and draw a distinction to the 12, by all means do so, but for pete's sake COVER THE DIFFERENCE. Recast the disambig article, and start with that title if necessary, but at least explain SOMEWHERE who the twelve are versus those who aren't. Sorry I can't be any clearer. Try thinking like a twelve year old reader finding the topic for the first time and see if you educate the lad. That's the connection you seem to not be trying to make, given the inadequate link from 'Olympians'. Best regards // FrankB 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation article at Olympians was kind of unclear. I changed it to refer people to the main page for all the Olympians, at Greek Gods, rather than the specific article about the Twelve Olympians. I think that should take care of your complaint. If you think it's still unclear we can revise it further, just so long as you don't reinsert the incorrect implication that the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular were the same thing.

In its first sentence, the article on the Twelve Olympians links to the article for all the Greek Gods, and it explains that the Twelve Olympians were only the principal Gods, so I think it already covers the distinction.

Note that I wasn't the one who made the distinction between the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular. That article has been around since 2004, and it's been edited hundreds of times, by a lot of people. I didn't discover it until November 2008. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engraving

I'm afraid I reverted your changes to this as they were almost entirely inaccurate, as you would have found out (in several respects) by reading the rest of the article. Engraving on metal predates woodcut by several thousand years, & until steel-facing was introduced in the C19, engraved printing plates were only usable for some hundreds of impressions in most cases, whereas woodcut blocks could print into the thousands (as they only need low-pressure presses). And so on. Please try to restrict major edits to subjects you know something about. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed text

It originated from the technology and practices needed to make the woodcuts for printmaking, but was extended to be purely artistic in decorative designs in metal. In printmaking the process came full circle and was developed in Germany in the 1430s from the engraving used by goldsmiths to decorate metalwork to make printing plates for illustrations—for woodcuts were good for at best a few hundred pressed pages, while metal engraved printing plates were essentially indestructible by comparison.

Thanks for the heads up... That's OK, I removed my inferred sentences (above) when reinstating the important part of my change; though I doubt the case is as "solidly wrong" as you suggest, inasmuch as dark ages monks did woodcuts, but I digress, as does the further point that a technology lost is.... lost and the fact it's being reinvented two thousand years later thereafter becomes TRIVIA--albeit tech history) and so restored the original 'important change' that caused me to edit your writing shortcoming and correct the article viewpoint to cover the other meanings.

The word has three meanings, albeit interrelated, and IMHO the page is still unbalanced —just better now, no matter how much or little I may or may not know about it. Your close knowledge is perhaps blinding you to the other meanings... such as the engravings category on the commons I was wrestling with organizing.
Try writing English, and prick the balloonish sense of self-importance... it's unbecoming. I do think you all need to mention some relationship to woodcuts up high. // FrankB 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a continuous and important history of engraving on metal, stone etc for thousands of years. Late medieval, not "dark ages (not a respectable term for some decades, monks did indeed (among others) make woodcuts, but woodcut blocks are not engraved - that is wood engraving from the late 18th century on. Woodblocks are cut with chisels not burins for a relief printing not an intaglio printing process - totally different. All this is already in the relevant articles. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt... I'm just concerned with broadening the article to cover the alternative uses of the term as the vernacular language exists, as opposed to the special tech focus of the article lead as was yesterday. My real focus was here (well REALLY more in figuring out how stuff in there needed fixed up...) and related arts categories and category schema.

Since we've crossed paths since today from the unsaved edit I started here answering you 'oh-so-much-earlier' this morning (which was lost, alas--fell off the end of the buffer), and the changes suggested composing that (changes here: Engraving (edit talk links history)) haven't been reverted by you (so far), I don't see we have any big disagreement.
It's all a matter of making sure all the uses of the page get some coverage. Thanks for the mergeto/mergefrom vote of support @ worksofar,etc., if not for the two edit conflicts! <BSEG> Cheers! // FrankB 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)<br[reply]
(It might amuse you to find out as it did me that in getting back to answering you today indirectly required an edit on the Indonesian wikipedia... so loosing the edit buffer with the earlier incomplete answer is a "Shit Happens" condition as usual in wikiland. Biz as usual! Wish I knew how to increase the edit que history in firefox... any ideas?)

Refimprove

Hi! I saw this edit, which you made on January 27 of this year: [1]

"It's a stub, dummy!" is not an acceptable reason to comment out a tag. Every article, including stubs, needs references. Generally each paragraph needs a ref. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC) In whose opinion... somebody change the rules on endless editing, AGF, or IAR when I wasn't looking??? Last I looked any editor acting in good faith can make a reversing editorial decision on any given day... Use of that template on a stub is downright foolish.[reply]

1) I don't play the liberal PC game, so be sensible, not fashionable... It was a dumb unnecessary tagging. Point, Set, Match. Actually, that tag and it's friends really doesn't have a lot of utility these days... three years back when cites first became possible, maybe... just barely... but the fact tag works much better, as it requires the LAZY IDIOT faking making a contribution (I see no reason to assist such people in their self-delusions) to actually think about where to put it, and if they're a good editor, they will specifically embed a comment in the template saying what needs supported or what they find questionable, etc.

AGF SEEMS to be totally unknown to the current crop of replacement editors (At this point, I'm weary of finding out which other long term editor has left the project, so it's almost always some young school kid replacement sans seasoning with an over large ego.)

2) How foolish are you? You some kind of kid wedded blindly to rules and without enough experience to make judgments as to when they apply? Or were you commenting on my blatant obvious come down (in which case, see "1")

3) If you're that raw and naive and resent it for being or resembling you, go screw up some other wiki, we have enough fuckups here. Stubs don't generally even get categorized, save by the stub type... they are TO DO lists. Placeholders. Beginnings. Asking for cites when someone is outlining a topic is ridiculous at best... not really even that excusable.

4) Then consider... IN YOUR FACE TAGS OF ANY KIND are and always have been controversial here. SO STOP BLINDLY HANGING PAPER AND fooling yourself that it's a contribution of the least kind. Hanging one's a detriment, a step backwards that makes us look like fools to the outside world of users... You know, our readers for whom the project exists?

5) If something needs references stand up on two legs and be an editor... it's educational to run down new information, and you can cure that little gripe you have on cites... and impress some with the fact you actually added some, instead of whined like a four year old screaming for ice cream. I do on average 10 or more of those a week just checking links... try to copy that and you'll have less reasons to feel proud of yourself for hanging trash. // FrankB 18:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank:

1. I've been here since 2003.
2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks - If "liberal PC game" means commenting on the contribution instead of the contributor and treating other contributors with courtesy, then you have to play the "liberal PC game" to continue editing Wikipedia ;)
3. WP:V is now the cornerstone of Wikipedia policy. You have to have references with articles. There's no way around this.
4. Hanging these tags is the right thing to do

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I was characterizing the edit... it is and was dumb. "Right Thing" is a real stretch. Harmless, perhaps... save for the big in YOUR FACE issue... See, I object to those like some object to calling dumb things dumb, etc.

My edit was clear in that message and leaving it behind as an embedded comment for the education of and to discourage such tag hanging by others. Removing the template is entirely within WP:V simply becase 'V' is such a major part of our policies, and a very simple chain of logic says it's hardly needed in a new page--especially one already tagged by another IN YOUR FACE tag. In short stating the obvious in something just stubbed together is OVERKILL and STUPID.

Last I looked, the US Constitution entitled me to hold opinions, and if you're interpretation of Wikiqette is that I can't ever state one... fuck off and ban me forever. Trust me, it'll be a favor. If not, I'll speak frankly when and where I see fit. I don't believe in handling all idiocies with kid gloves... Some plain speaking must be kept to educate others.

The inline comment is a very low key way of spreading the message... "THIS IS DUMB" which you seem to fail to grasp. I'll be careful to avoid the Dumbshit word hereafter, since I do see that plain hyperbole might be taken as a direct PA... but frankly, disagree with that as a need... but if it will help avoid unwanted advice, I'll keep it in mind.

I didn't seek out and confront a contributor and increase the hostility of the working environment here with the editor I disagreed with, I didn't preach to them, nor assume My interpretation of any and all guidelines was the only one which applies... In fact I can argue I know such interpretations better than most, for most are too narrow in using their own god given cognition to even consider how things might also be interpreted — blind, in a word. Sanctimonious, self-righteous and liberal in character.

THAT WOULD BE YOU, pushing the issue, n'est pas? No fucking surprise so many good editors burn out and fade away. This place wears. Your message here is biased and A Personal Attack by my lights for questioning me over something so trivial... as you aren't doing anything but wasting both our times over something which can be argued either way.

Wish I had your free time... must be nice. // FrankB 13:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. That article wasn't stub. A stub refers to article length. You can have a well-referenced, very short article. Every article, regardless of how new it is or how short it is, needs refs.

Hmmmmmm You can't read too good... note the page bottom in this non-diff mode. Personally, I figure that WP:AGF means I let the editor's writing the page decide when it's not. Until then, In Your Face Tags are not welcome. //FrankB 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. The US Constitution is an agreement between the US Government and her people. Wikipedia is a private website and it can regulate behavior and speech of its users as the said users use the website. You can be frank by commenting on people's behavior and contributions.

3. The bit about removing the tag to follow WP:V does not compute. Tags are encouraged because they draw attention to an issue. You remove the tag when you address the problem. Regardless of article length all articles need to be reffed.

4. It is perfectly acceptable to ask an editor to revise his or her editing patterns to comply with policies. It's not a good idea to hide tags without addressing what they ask for. A Wikipedia:Personal attack would generally be a comment about a contributor, not his or her contributions. I am talking about actions and suggesting different actions.

5. "THIS IS DUMB" isn't a reason that computes. Something like "Article X already has references" or "plot sections do not need references" (the unstated ref is the work itself) DOES compute. Be specific and say what you mean. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabartus, I looked at this diff. [2] - First "You can't read too good" is a personal attack... and it's a false one. The message "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found" is a system message stating that refs exist and that there needs to be a </references> listing of them. But {{refimprove}} says there are not enough references for the material. The system message doesn't negate the refimprove. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your last

Are you trolling???

Seems like it...

IN my humble opinion you are a sanctimonious asshole. What part of anything I've said to you made you think your picayune trivialities were anything I wanted to hear about from you. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WITH ME. YOU CONTINUE TO PUSH OVER A TRIVIALITY... GET A FUCKING LIFE! What are you... some kind of kid that has no real world experience? OR an academic used to pushing students around? You and I have differing ways of looking at things. LET THAT SAY IT ALL. Your perceptions are not my reality, nor are they even yours.

ON The last edit: (from the diff)

":::: I looked at this diff. [3] - First "You can't read too good" is a personal attack... and it's a false one. The message "Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found" is a system message stating that refs exist and that there needs to be a </references> listing of them. But {{refimprove}} says there are not enough references for the material. The system message doesn't negate the refimprove. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

My comment had nothing to do with the reference list... Look at the edit page I linked with the full url... that state of the article. (See tom Run. See Sally laugh!) LOOK AT THE FUCKING STUB TAG DUM DUM... YOU CLAIMED IT WAS NOT A STUB ARTICLE... I say that's enough for WP:V. NOW kindly drop dead and stay away from my talk. // FrankB 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: First "You can't read too good" is a personal attack... NO IT'S A BLATANT OBSERVATION. That stub tag is in the record and will be forever more. How's an observation of fact an attack? YOU'RE FUCKING GUILTY AS HELL OF PUSHING POV when you don't even understand distinctions, forsooth. // FrankB 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: ("and graduated in May 2007".) I shoulda known... only a fucking kid could be this asinine. Kindly get a life and back your self-righteousness down about five-to-seven decibels... you're far too raw and unfinished still yourself to be pro-offering unsolicited advice to someone any older than ... say, late junior high. As someone who could have been your father in nearly three different decades, you're a joke. Most people aren't fully human until they reach their mid-thirties... you've still a long large climb ahead, so humble yourself. Your lack of skill dealing with people is telling. (Hint. Experienced people with their shit together would have never started this discussion. THEY CERTAINLY wouldn't have tried to continue it when rebuffed. etc., increase magnitude with each exchange exponentially!) As a self-styled computer wiz, try to remember what an exponent is. // FrankB 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, in that case, that stub tag wasn't supposed to be there. Wikipedia:Stub describes a stub as "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information." - There were clearly more than "a few sentences." WhisperToMe (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just sent by email in reply

You have a real problem. See a shrink ASAP

Further if you edited instead of worried about guidelines and procedures and tags and rules and all the window dressings which really don't get anything done... (really says you're unseasoned and studentish... )

you'd know stub articles go very frequently to 2-3 screenfuls of text. 1-1-1/2 pages printed out at times. Now that depends on topic, but that's the way it is. You're trying to live in and impose an ideal which doesn't and hasn't and can't exist for there aren't enough of us to make it happen as soon as you'd like. For starters, piss ant concerns like those you've raised just drives people off.

Be well, but leave me alone.

Frank

Sigh // FrankB 04:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly live in two different wiki's

Tags have been encouraged by some, but have ALWAYS been controversial to others. I'm one of those. Just because some people outlast the others in various fora here doesn't mean the controversy has gone away. The way we decide guidelines sucks and always has as well. Need a quorum at the least, not the process where those who win their way do so by having worn down those too busy to keep up with the discussion that goes on forever. So let's cut to the chase. You don't like it, or my decisions, too bad. I don't care for jumped up know-it-alls telling me anything. I've told Jimbo off, I've told judges I held them and their court in contempt, I've ridiculed cops when they were acting out and unprofessionally, and I've dragged bigots out of their front door by the throat when they called my tenants a nigger so I'll be damned if I'll let you or anyone else dictate what I can and cannot say or how.

Further, NOBODY RESPECTS LAWYERS (In their right mind), so don't get legalistic on me. I'd sooner live next to a thirty-times serial killing axe murderer. I care about wasted time. MINE. Not interested in making friends here... they've all left. Making more just brings more likely pain. Kapish? I'm civil enough most of the time. When I'm not it's an adult decision made under a different value system than the liberal garbage you're advocating. Private rights trump the constitution... not in my world view. That kind of thought'll draw a death sentence in much of the real America, so you be sure to stay out of those places. Not interested in your theories of constitution vs. websites, I'll speak frankly when I JUDGE it necessary. When and if someone is acting silly, costing others on the project time, some small percentage of the time, I'll do something like the edit you're bitching about to make their foolishness known. I didn't seek out and confront anyone... again that would be you. Why don't you take a wikibreak and consider how hostile an action that is. Almost as bad as a revert... but do others share both your values and your perceptions? Chances are not so. THAT's the bottom line. You don't like it... tough. Feel free to block me whenever... it'd likely be a favor as I neglect my business to do anything here. And do far too much of it. Got it? // FrankB 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another budinski

March 2009

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: [4]. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FlyingToaster 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free (I spend far too much time here as it is)... or stay out of discussions you weren't invited into. The PA is coming the other way, by my lights... totally disrespectful of others time... which is 'far more hostile' than strong words can ever be!.

Bout time you sanctimonious self-righteous thought police connect the dots to the troubles holding good editors. Retention is a real problem... what is it now, 4? 5? 7? times as many inactive admins as active ones?

Whisper can ascertain his/her own opinion and stand up for herself... and why pray tell should I respect your opinion when you can't even follow the back link and comment in the proper section??? Doesn't give you any credibility with me. Whisper did OK in her answer: [User_talk:Fabartus#Refimprove here], so mind your own business. // FrankB 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabartus, on Wikipedia people do mind their own business, and they mind other peoples' business as well. I think a better response would be "I get the point, thank you very much" WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that would be off point... I resent the interference, and so should you given the timing. 2X zero is still zero, and something trivial is definitely zero. All this chit-chat is time wasted because it's rooted in the trivial complaint you engendered, which I can't respect. Let's stop that waste and agree to disagree. Pax, do remember endless edits going forward. It's part of the five pillars, iirc. // FrankB 03:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations @MILHIST

for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election ...

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's your daddy? (phrase)

I don't understand how {{db-author}} would apply in this case. The article has been edited by numerous people over several years. Is there more to it than meets the eye? Cheers. Fribbler (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I goofed? Hist page I saw had but two entries... so may have been the AFD debate page??? Not gonna worry bout it; thanks though. // FrankB 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I thought (nay, hoped) for a second that you had uncovered a very very large sockfarm. I must be starved of intrigue. :-) Thanks! Fribbler (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad feelings unneedful

Ribbon 1 • Ribbon 2

You added a little light to my day with the flower, so here is a little light for yous. LA @ 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fabartus. You have new messages at Lady Aleena's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LA @ 18:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LA @ 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks at User talk:WhisperToMe. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 05:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OH, IC, He trolls me and you abuse the project for being firm with the maniac. He needs a shrink, and I said so. That's truly effective liberal thinking... just like the multi-trillion dollar pillage and rapine congress just began... // FrankB 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]