Datasets:

tarekziade

/

profanity

like 2

" please produce the free image or i will reintroduce the fair use image. seven days should be sufficient. ⇔ †@1₭ "

I think the reference for NWOBHM should be used instead being things like WASP and other styles of metal could come got mind where as NWOBHM narrows the focus to the raw aggressive sounds associated with that scene rather that early metal itself . though it can be said Led Zeppelin and others power have had an influence on the early punk and hardcore punk musicians , MWOBHM seems to be more appropriate .68.39.152.45

Pythagorean theorem, Pythagoras?

I don't have a complete answer for you. The to the configuration do not appear to have broken anything and should do what your edit summaries indicated you desire. My experience is that ClueBot III (CB3) will sometimes take a while (days) to either begin making archive edits on a page, or act on changes to a configuration. As you can see from the , it took CB3 4 days to start making archives from when I initially added the configuration template on that page. I have not looked at the code for the bot to see why this is the case, but it is what happens from the outside looking in. My assumption has been: that in order to reduce the load on the servers, it does not look at every page each time it runs. Even though it has been about 48 hours since you made the change to reduce the , let's give it a bit more time. If CB3 does not pick up the change in the near future, we can switch to

Yeah, they're both puff-pieces written with obvious COI. One puff article is better than 2. The Dissident Aggressor

No, it can't because that 1994 court proceeding is in reference to an action that happened in 1970 or therabouts. The quote uses a few of the words mentioned, without the context which is not in regards to 1994, or even to 1990, but in regards to an earlier time. metnews spells out that timeline.

Division symbol The )- one. When did that happen? Thanks.

Mykungfu, why do you persist in trying to evade your block with edits like this: I think it should be clear now that there are plenty of editors who will roll back your changes. If you question whether Skip Mason's site is a reliable source, let's have that discussion on the article's talk page - but only if you first stop vandalizing the article. It's starting to look to me like it's more important for you to get your way than it is for you to help make the article better by discussing the issues. I'm willing to help you, because I think underneath it all you raise a good point, but the bad behavior has to stop first. | talk

Those Islamofascist organizations are not notable enough to be mentioned in this article.

Almost all links you provided above are good sources about Tretiakov. However, they tell nothing specifically about the Nuclear winter and the KGB. Only book by Tretiakov does. If you can find more sources specifically on this subject, please do.

Please stop being smug and supply me with a real answer concerning my ban.

" The text on that page says, ""You are welcome to use these images, however, you may not use them for any commercial purposes."" Technically, I don't think Pacific Northwest National Incident Management Team 2 can claim copyright on government photos, but I think the lines are blurry since they're making a request like this. In other words, I don't think Wikipedia can directly use these photos with the text given on their web site. I would consider writing to the PNW Team 2 webmaster to ask if they'd grant permission. You could explain to them that Wikipedia and its mirrors won't be reselling the photos for profit, and/or you could mention that they shouldn't be claiming copyright on government works anyway. Or, you could contact the Forest Service directly to see if those photos are available through a channel other than the PNW Team 2 web site. (Elkspeak) "

|currentstatus=FGAN |topic=Theatre, film and drama

So, I think unified silla was old term that had firstly used by Japanese colonists.

Gah, I suspected that this guy had at least some experience, knowing what BLPs were and all that. I don't see anything in the block log, am I looking in the wrong place? He seems bent on my protection rationale - not the best, but hey - even though it would've been protected for a BLP dispute anyways. Keilana|Parlez ici Is that the right IP address? I don't see a block in the log. If you're right, then it's a sock getting around a block to harasss an admin... Dreadstar † Frak; I don't see it now; maybe I looked at the wrong tab? Sorry, folks, I may have cried wolf on this one. Pairadox (talk) It's alright, I've got a coupla messes on my hands, if you find it that would be great, if not, it's no big deal. He said it'd be his last post on my talk, so it may have just sorted itself out, without unnecessary drama. Thank God. Keilana|Parlez ici

" Old ""sockpuppetry suspicion"" post that you never replied to Hello. Last July, you posted on my talk page saying that I was being suspected of sockpuppetry. This was a surprise to me. I asked you to clarify, but you never did. I just spent a while looking through the talk pages of the ""sockpuppeteer"" (or whatever the term may be) in question, and it seems like it was decided that I was ""unrelated"" to the person in question and my case was ""closed"" (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mattisse/Archive). I'd really appreciate it if you could post on my talk page something about this investigation having been resolved, so people don't think I'm some sort of evil malicious editor. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Thanks! "

Oh and you can't block me because my provider uses a dynamic IP address (that is it changes every time I log on).

US County Map Projection

@youngchug nah Bama fans ain't finna have a nigger running the offense.

The article is nearly ready for public release. Note that it is not a complete history and detailed description of everything that happened at the Shaker Valley Work Group. Following Wikipedia policies of notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), and citation/source guidelines (WP:SOURCES), it emphasizes those aspects of the operation that were notable enough that they got onto the public radar through third-parties writing about it.

Thank you, drive thru.

don't thumbnail it, insert it like this, 1999 eclipse]] (ᛏ)

" First of all, this claim is very disputable- I've seen a number of shows she's worked on and none of them specifically used her body to ""sell."" Her career was made out of circumstances like most other careers. Adding this to the article would mean a similar section would be needed in thousands of other articles. Beautiful people are expected to show some sex-appeal, that's just how things work these days. But to answer your question, not that I'm aware of, and I'm 99% sure it would be unfounded criticism, and probably holds no place on Wikipedia. "

" Noveseminary is at it again.... You're at it again... get ready to run and tattle to the notice board again, no doubt....for real or imagined infractions by me, cuz you can't help yourself. You have serious issues, and you seem to add nothing more (at least to this article) but uptight nonsense and censorship and aggravation.....and I'm NOT the only one who thinks that. this was discussed, and I KNOW you were waiting for a time to remove the whole Mormon thing, but it's non-negotiable, and already established...your dislike of facts gives you no right to remove em... The Mormon thing stays, as it IS sourced, and is established, and is a point of example how ""separated brethren"" OFFICIALLY is not applied to groups such as Mormons. Get over it, and move on about it already. And by the way, THERE WILL BE NO 3RR VIOLATION BY ME AT ALL ON THIS. But it doesn't matter, as I know that you edit war regardless. You think that by waiting a week or two to undo the whole Mormon thing that that's somehow not a ""revert"". It's a manual revert, whether it was done 5 minutes later or 5 weeks later.....so don't try to fool Admins or anyone else with that tactic. It won't work. You had a hang-up against the whole Mormon reference from the very beginning, and you just WAIT for the opportunity to mess with it, and totally remove it. And then act all innocent that it's just me doing the ""edit warring"". Anyway, the Mormon thing is established, well-sourced, and important to note, for the reader, whether you personally like the sourced fact or not.... "

The links now seem to work on another computer. Axel

Vandalism Laurascudder, I strongly object against your vandalism. I am writing an article which is not the original article 'Anti-relativity', but which is called 'Galilean relativity. I had been invited to create an new article. Would you please instantly re-install all text you have deleted, please?

To Molobo It just looks to me like you’re trying to shape the article according to your own ideas, and are selectively quoting just the materials that support your cause, this is weary much like what David Irving is doing, no wonder you’re using him as source. We’re just trying to objectively present the facts here in full context, not model articles around opinions.

Re: dmy tag The tag is used to inform Wikipedia bot programs which date format is in use (day-month-year in this case). The tag should not be visible to regular viewers and does not directly affect article content. Some bots may do date updating and maintenance on dates such as removing links or other date formatting, therefore a tag ensures the bot will apply the correct date format. The other format, month-day-year, tends to be associated with American non-military articles, therefore an tag would help the bots for that case. Hope this info helps.

" Editor review Hey Nish, I'm currently up for Editor Review. I would be most appreciative if you could comment on my Wikipedia habits there and offer some advice. Thanks in advance. Thanks for the Editor Review. I honestly, truely know that I do not want to become a Wikipedia Admin. However, I hold the same thoughts towards Wikipedia as I do towards the US military: Given the choice, I would never join up, but my personal philosophy of national service (I agree with the idea of mandatory national service of some sort, whether it be community service or military) compels me so that I plan to join the US military in some form in the future. The problem I currently face with Wikipedia is that I'm constantly fighting an uphill battle in both the preservation of information and the adding of new information to Wikipedia. Often, something that I hope to be small edit becomes a huge issue due to vandalism, edit wars, extremely overly burecratic Wikipedians (example: those who like to delete almost every image from topics under the fair use policy), etc. I don't want to end up like many of the former Admins who came to Wikipedia to add information and stayed because they became Admins and spent all their time putting out fires. However, as Wikipedia will experience exponential growth within the next decade (it will plateau when the Internet finally reaches into the third world in a big way), and with that growth will come a huge number of vandals. Honestly, I believe Wikipedia now can use 10x the number of Admins. I can't even imagine how bad it might get on here (with vandals) in a decade or so when the number of Admins has grown at a steady pace but the number of vandals is huge due to the rapid growth of Wikipedia and the Internet in general. I would prefer to not be an Admin, but I'm willing to put up with whatever it takes to preserve the good info of Wikipedia while ensuring that new info can be added properly. Any thoughts on this? EDIT: Also, I'd like to expand my Vandal Fighting activities, but I'm not sure if I should get external programs like VandalProof. I do patrol newpages every now and then, and in the process catch many vandals. However, I usually cannot punish these vandals because of the WP:AGF policy and the fact that warnings really do nothing to repeat vandals. I'll try my best. Alexander Litvinenko You left this comment on my talk page: Umm...you stated that you shortened the intro here as per WP:LEAD. We were discussing the intro on the talk page, and I would have appreciated it if you would go back and discuss the intro's status on the talk page. I am restoring back the intro section, and you can make minor changes if you wish, but please don't make drastic changes without discussing. Thanks. By the way, keep up the great work with the article. =) Hopefully we can pull this to GA or FA in the near future. Best, Nishkid64 I've discussed the article on the talk page: The introduction is way too rambling and detailed which is why I shortened it. Please read WP:LEAD which recommends it is concise. Also some of the sentences don't flow well. The first sentence was a Russian Security Service agent [with a link to FSB] and later a Russian dissident is a much better summary than was an ex-FSB lieutenant-colonel with KGB experience in fighting organized crime. Tom . In order for the article to have more impact it needs to be more concise. You restored back the intro' i.e. a major change and said I could make 'minor' changes if I wish but 'had to discuss drastic ones', I hope you realise this is hypocritical, given that you did a major revert without discussing. As you know, several people on the talk page have suggested to you that the intro was too long. I promise you, the shortened introduction looks and reads better than the longer one. The longer one does not summarise what he was in the first sentence including his dissidence, it goes straight into a narrative without any gap: ""After working in..."", it doesn't make sense in English,""his superiors had ordered for the assassination"" should be ""his superiors had ordered the assassination"". You can't be a dissident of an organisation, see dissident. It's got several long contiguous paragraphs instead of 4 short clearly defined ones. Anyway, hope you're okay, give us a shout and we can talk about it. It was that you said 'don't make drastic changes withou

I have reinstalled the 1930 date; even your source dates the code to 1930. Even if the code only became binding in 1934 (as claimed by this article), it is factually inaccurate to say the code itself was first implemented in any year other than 1930.

" Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Hobo. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. "

Intercity 225 Intercity 225 Hello Snow, I notice that you've add copies of the File:Class 91 Peterborough - late 1980 s.jpg image to several articles, with captions stating that it is an Intercity 225 set. This is incorrect; it is a British Rail Class 91 locomotive, coupled to British Rail Mark 3 coaches. This is the origin of the eight British Rail Class 43 locomotives (six now used by Grand Central Railway) with buffers fitted that were used before delivery of the matching British Rail Mark 4 stock to make up the Intercity 225 sets. Hope that's useful! — It is usefull. I'm modifying it now.

" ""fringe theory"" The article currently contains the sentence: Richard Stallman says that proprietary software commonly contains ""malicious features, such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades."" This is problematic on various levels: NPOV - ""neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing [...] all significant views that have been published by reliable sources"" - Stallman's view is hardly a ""significant view"" undue weight - ""Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"" It is a Fringe theory / conspiracy theory, backed by absolutely zero evidence (from WP:FRINGE): ""An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner."" ""We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field."" A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. ""Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals."" - The FSF is clearly an organization with certain political views, clearly not a reliable source. ""Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article"" ""The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources."" ""Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles."" ""Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse."" ____ User Pnm stated ""His perspective belongs in the article because he's prominent critic."", but that is highly debatable, is his view (the particular one about spyware/backdoor) discussed in reliable sources? Do we have reliable sources that support he is a ""prominent critic""? It should also be noted that being a ""prominent critic"", by itself, is not a valid rationale for inclusion. "

Thanks Mcgeddon, much appreciated. -)

" Wye Valley School It appears you are adding the heads of every department to the school page. Per WP:SCH/AG, ""The names of current and former teachers should only be included if they are notable in their own right (for example, they are published authors or they have won a teaching award), or they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial press coverage."" If you disagree, feel free to bring it up for discussion at Talk:Wye Valley School. - (talk • contribs) - "

" July 2010 (UTC) Pettid, M. J. (2008). Korean Cuisine: An Illustrated History. London: Reaktion Books. 1) The section ""Meats and Fish"" (pp.59-66) discusses beef in pp.59-61, pork in pp.61-62, chicken in p.62, and dog meat in p.62. (in the SAME section) 2) P.85, 2nd paragraph: ""Of course, dogs raised for meat are very distinct from the popular pets that one can see throughout Korea at present."" This confirms footnote #44 that User talk:Melonbarmonster2 had deleted. 3) P.25, 2nd paragraph: ""The livestock that was raised include cattle, pigs, and chickens...Other meats were used in moderation, including dog and wild animals such as deer, boar, and pheasant"" This confirms footnote #45 that User talk:Melonbarmonster2 had deleted. If anybody has any other questions regarding this source, please contact me at my talk page. I will have access to the book for a few more months. To User talk:Melonbarmonster2: A word of advice...Instead of blanking contents falsely accusing reliable sources, why don't you make some meaningful contribution to the article? And if you doubt a source, check it out yourself rather than passing the buck. 18:47, 7"

, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Agreed. Nor do I think – with all respect for Tiamut's graciousness – that there's any reason to believe that editors who have refused to participate seriously in discussion will suddenly alter course when their whimsical personal demands are met. 13:49

Please provide your summary of the above news articles. Can you? Baburam Bhattarai did have a criminal history (justified or unjustified) and you are just not allowing anyone to post anything that talks about his criminal past. It can be historically seen from all your edits in that article that you have edited everything that shed light on his 'underground' days. Need a help Hi everyone, I would love if anyone can write a brief summary - in 1 or 2 sentence - regarding the historical background of Baburam Bhattarai that can be put up on his wikipedia page. We need to write based on these articles: - - -

see the messageboard for proof!

that is required for having their own article

@kayt27 poor coon.......snow stopped here,now if the wind would it might be nice out,well for winter

It's Tom again. This has just come out. []

That guy who you're so into and who is constantly an asshole to you doesn't give a damn about you beyond ur pussy

I know this is not scientific data because I don't have the documents but my high school Geography teacher told me some years ago that the 238.391 sq km is the correct figure because in the comunist period there were people reporting smaller figures in order to pay smaller taxes. So I think Bogdandiusca is right. Either taxes or agricultural reports (or bouth). Paul I

TalkOrigins.org is a discussion group, not an authoritative source on the level of a peer reviewed journal. Besides Ken Ham would gladly agree that no one witnessed Creation and that both creation and evolution are scientifically unprovable theories. I don't think you want to go there.

remove images plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz remove those images and drawings of Muhammad(S.A W). please

I did not do anything wrong Why are you editing Wikipedia? Go home to Armenia and shut your mouth. you lie and make things up. Stop now your PKK vermin.

I am right-wing that is all. i did make mistakes. what statements? I have overreacted in a repeative matter due to said person i wished dead calling for acceptance of terrorism via whitewashing (or so i see it)also i was pulling a prank and trying to make him respond.

@InEyeAleE you're filled with pimps and hoes. We'll just talk about those I knows. @JosephBananas

") Please approve heli12 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC"

reason they didnt need to be on every page just put it on the main page..it gets redicolous to have them everywhere

do you get some kinnda rise out of deleting peoples pages? you little nerd mess off

did not have reliable, third-party sources.

'Human Rights Violations' What an outrageous double standard of Wikipedia! There's no word of criticism permitted on U.S. President Barack Obama's biography, nor Presidency of Barack Obama page; yet Kim gets an entire section DEDICATED to it.

" I sent my best man to ""have a talk"" with him he has a lovely way of putting things in order.The WelshBuzzard''"

It is? Oh, well, my apologies for bluntness. I wonder...what do you call a fraudulent encyclopedia (because it isn't really an encyclopedia), run by monstrous 'careerist' children who follow a fuehrer, all with ruthless efficiency? What do you call this horrendous admin abuse, gratuitous range-blocks, permanent bans, all because an admin doesn't like the editor? Hmmmm? Got a better term?76.195.93.15

Mr. freeze. Why did you delete and then restore Mr. Freeze? I couldn't find any reasons in the logs or edit history.

Can't sleep, clown will eat me, go fuck yourself you piece of hog anus.

" I agree that ""Keep, faggots"" was needlessly insulting, but it was in the edit summary, so reverting the edit doesn't help there, I don't know if you can even edit the summaries at all. Anyway, I think jackson's vote should be counted, so I will put it back one more time and if one of you reverts I'll leave it alone. "

Speak to my face you fake bitches.

" My campaigning days are over, my wiki-destiny lies in other fields, but if you found an alternative the same ""know-all"" crew would just descend with their rules and regulation. Tell me whay you want to know about the station on my talk. "

Fairy Fun - Losing her wings doesn't mean there aren't other ways to fly? asmsg, erotica shortstory

ONe will undoubtedly come out as soon as the demurrage fractionalizes and I get the money transferred into my account.

" Page blanking Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ~ Riana ⁂ "

" May 2011 (UTC) I notice that this RfC is dead but SH just removed a sock's comment. I actually do think this conversation is fine staying open since there is not consensus and inclusion v not is essentially WP:FREQUENT. I did not notice NickCT's comment until now but wanted to address it since we have already gone over this but people seem to forget or have to rattle it off everytime it comes up. I for one think ""massacre"" in some form should be mentioned in the lead. Unfortunately, the assertion that it is what ""people involved call it"" is contradicted by the following: Gaza Victory: enough said but just a reminder, it can't be a massacre and a victory can it? ""Gaza Massacre"" has been disputed as a title with the sources mirroring its forced use on Wikipedia Hamas did not have an official name for it. This has been discussed and it is a point conceded by those in favor of inclusion. Hamas simply did not use its limited PR capabilities to clearly lay this out as their preferred title (see point 1). But back to my point of keeping this open. I have offered two solutions. Nableezy has rejected at leas one of them. Include ""it has been called a massacre"". No bold. Not an alternative title. Just simply lay it out there. One editor recently provided a source calling it ""Massacre in Gaza"". It was obviously referred to as a massacre. or Include every title that was verifiably used in RS at a ratio of tens of thousands to one. This could be accomplished by actually adding information in the lead about the media and its relation t this topic. This would increase the quality of the article by meeting WP:LEAD] by being an actual summary. I'm not going to lie, I think it is time to change the title of this article altogether. notice that other language's Wikipedia projects refer to it as the Israeli operational name (some editors have equated this to POV even though it is a very common and accurate title) or one laying out the dates and calling it a conflict (as we used to do but it was really long). That discussion will eventually come up again and any decision here will get scuttled by it (or the opposite). But it is clear that giving prominence to a very little used and POV dripping title in the lead is not acceptable to many editors without thoughtful balancing. Two easy options are presented to you. It is my hope that the word massacre is used in the lead but how to do it is a hurdle. And add on top of that that we still don't even have a good main title and it shows that this process has been broken since day 1. Day 1 was years ago. 03:16, 28"

Welcome! Hello, Peteyiom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: The five pillars of Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page and How to develop articles How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish) Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

" No I am not missing the point; I am disagreeing with you. Since he still uses a regnal name, the ""other clergy"" argument doesn't fly. He was a pope and is pope emeritus, so his article's title should remain as close to the established convention as possible. The fact that he stepped down is not a compelling reason to drastically deviate. Nothing in what you say makes any logical argument for why ""Benedict XVI"" is the best form for a pope emeritus. In other words, in the formulation ""Because X, the unmodified regnal name is the most appropriate for a pope emeritus"", you have yet to supply X. This seems to be more about your personal preference than rules or logic. Also, since the article should match the other popes after he dies, what we are really talking about is what to call him while he is alive. Does it really make sense to drop ""Pope"" then add it back? What is the difference? Keeping the article where it is no more suggests he is the current pope than Pope John Paul II does or that Queen Victoria suggests she remains a current monarch. Even in the unlikely situation that someone arrived here from ""Random article"" and momentarily thought he was still pope, that would be cured immediately by the lead, the resignation section, and the discussion of his pontificate in the past tense. No case has been made for this change, so I don't see why you expect everyone to agree to make it. - "

"== Wikipedia and copyright == Hello Notsilly, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Wonderland City has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here. You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks ("") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on ""text"". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here. Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research. Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow. Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 🍁 "

Yall bitches don't know how to be friends 😂😂

You are a faggot!68.33.41.181

Hi again! I have added my image with appropriate copyright tags into wikimedia commons. How do I pull the image from there to his wikipedia page? I can only find info about downloading a new image directly to wikipedia.

André Brazeau fear not André your article will come in due time. In due time... (

" PR Two sections of this article—""Charity"" and ""Treatment of laboratory animals""—are blatant corporate spin, probably added by Covance itself. If no one objects in the next few days I will delete them. – "

Now my side bitch my main bitch cause my main bitch aint feelin me no moe

How did you do it?! How did you turn yourself from a mass of twitchy muscle into a Bavarian creampuff?!

I know, but there is overwhelming evidence. I could use the B2B Criticisms and stick it right there. It's just rather not our duty to publish these without WP:Consent as well as users going through the editorial process.

It's funny how females don't want to be called a "bitch" but if you put the word bad in front of it then they're happy af

Question I have seen portions of the discussion page that I have written get deleted. Not archived, but deleted. Have you threatened removal for those people? I am all for keeping the sanctity of your page, but not at the cost of misinformation. An amicable solution would be preferrable for both of us as I am sure I can use any number of IP addresses. I ask to allow me to respond to why I believe I am not violating the rules, then you archive if you have a consensus. You left messages for me already, leave a message with a consensus of the contributors and I will have no problem with your archival, after being allowed a day to respond to why I am being archive. Further, stop deleting my discussion. Is this a fair resolution? Thanks Anon

How u know u dont get real life pussy. Only carin bout her enterin your DMs She can enter my DMs anytime

There can't be a Mario with-out a Luigi. I think he will come back but think his final smash would be something from Luigi's mansion but thats only what i'm think.

Chicken Noodle Soup is a notable song he created.

Oh, it's worse than rants, it's a rampage of irrational, delusional, sniping, an onslaught of deranged behavior by someone who cannot accept reality. The recent attacks at several of the pages around the board are proof that this person is beyond all help and hope and has no business editing this site or even our talk pages.

" Your mouth is your worst enemy Guy Matthew 7:12 ""Therefore whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets"" Matthew 12:36-37 ""But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgement"" ""For your words you will be justified and your words you will be condemned"" James 3:8 But no man cam tame the tongue, It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. James 3:9 With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. I hope you have a cheap lawyer Mr Chapman, the damage has already been done and why? because you cant control your pestilient manic mouth and your savvy internet skills which You chose to use to do evil instead of Good. Your have totally disregarded goodwill, decency, meekness, character, and good manners. Your truly, Brother Hemdean"

In response, I ask you to look at the section I removed. It was redundant and factually/grammatically incorrect, almost qualifying it as vandalism itself. - kondspi

@strawberrycoca ling ling krunkchip

Oh, puleese. I posted here about an issue with an image on your page, you are the one that trotted out your dispute with me and trotted it out at the arbitration, too. Please be more honest than that.OK, but enough on that. Here is how I boil down your claim:Is that a good summation of your position? Please tweak it or restate it so that we have clean statement of your position. Thanks.

" What gives you the right? Just a question, I thought we weren't supposed to delete entries from our talk page. Just because some other cyber-censor things it's ok to, does not give you the right to do it. You should hold yourself to a higher wikimoral-standard because you are in a wikiposition of wikipower. My words were not meant to be annoying. There is an error on your user page. You state you have been vandalized twice, but in reality it has been more than that. I am simply wondering why you are being dishonest. You shouldn't just jump to conclusions because you have some sort of bizarre internet power. This isn't a flame, or a troll, it's my POV, and you're not supposed to delete it off of your user page just because you don't like it. Remember ""staying_cool"". Read below and please ensure you understand it prior to commenting further. In working on Wikipedia, you may occasionally get into a dispute with another person. That person may seem like a troll or a hothead to you, but it's usually best to assume that you are dealing with a reasonable person who is simply confused on a particular issue or has a POV different from your own. No matter what the problem is, flaming is not going to solve it. Try to reach a truce."

Are you kidding me?! Casino Rama has provided hundreds of jobs, and has drastically increased tourism all year round. Casino Rama is currently being expanded, and a new hotel and recently been built. It's only getting larger and more important to the Orillian economy. I should now, I live in this town!

Vindictive My sense of honor is wounded by your spiteful regard. Let's us hope for comity to return.

order. A mere suggestion.

You're just another nigguh.

" Thanks ...for your recent comment on my talkpage. I agree with the points you made and I believe the situation has been resolved. I appreciate both your advice and your restraint. Tropics "

US Airways destinations Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to US Airways destinations. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

Excuse me ..who in the hell is that? ..and whatever man go edit and bother someone else. 8:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Allah... Allah, a Muslims version of Santa Claus for juvenile adults who feel the need to think a magical all seeing eye lives in the sky. *facepalm*!!!!

SLEEP WITH ME OR I WILL FUCKING KILL YOU AND BLOCK YOU!

A child name Ohnoitsjamie - a childish user name if ever there was has blocked my informative additions yet quite happiy allow Corbetts fellatio post.

Edit warring You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

I accidentaly did not realise that this tag put on in an earlier version so I removed it

I've fixed the problem, see User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js.