User talk:Only/Archive 2

Welcome to my talk page! I usually reply to messages right here (instead of coming to your talk page), so I suggest watching my page if you're looking for a reply. I watch user talk pages I comment on so we can keep discussions together. I will sometimes change really long signatures left here to save space and keep things neat and clean.



Eitherway, I am busy creating an article and was fairly put out to discover that it had been deleted before I even had time to save my simplifications. I glance at the history would have shown you it was newly created. The process of simplication takes time. Before rushing in, and taking radical action, a good way to start is to take a look at the editor's recent contributions. This would have informed you that my massive article on Leonardo, also transferred from wiki, has just been simplified. It has taken a couple of weeks to finish. Amandajm (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you copied and pasted everything without giving any credit to the en. article you copied it from. That's a quick deletion right there, established user or not, sorry. Either way (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think what Eitherway means is that you should edit ur simplifications on a word processor or something before u put it up on wikipedia. Oeniques

Re: COnfirmation

Sorry, I forgot to put that message on seWP. I'll get to that in a bit. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 00:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

18px Done OK, done. --The New ℳikemoral♪♪ 00:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Either way (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


[1] I saw that the lead said 1926, so I figured the change was wrong. Thanks for correcting it. EVula // talk // 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. the infobox said one thing, and the lead said the other. I cleared it up for consistency. Either way (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Sorry but I never realized, that the Students Tutorial should be a sandbox. In my opinion the there should be a link pointing to the sandbox, instead of having comments disturbing the tutorial. Anyway, sorry for giving you the hassle and assume good faith^^ The life of brian (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

QD templates‎‎ has requested his talk page deleted under QD U1. I deleted the template by saying that the template was supposed to be used for user pages, not user talk pages. The IP undid my revision. Naturally, I think I am right, but I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Could you please take whatever action necessary (if any), and explain your decision. I'm watching your talk page. Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This situation has been handled. I learned that IPs cannot have their talk pages deleted per request. However, old IP talk pages (more than a year, I believe) can be deleted. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

edits to my user page a few days ago

You edited my user page a few days ago and I realized it just now. Although, you meant well and I probably should not have said those things, I would have preferred that, 1. You had notified me on my talk page that you did remove content, or that 2. You had notified me on my talk page that you wished to have the content removed. I prefer option 2 because it allows me greater control over the things that are placed on my user page (it is my user page after all). Although, I will not reinstate that information as I understand I was wrong in my statement (en is better in some ways and simple is better in others) if in the future it happens again (which I hope will never happen) please notify me. Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You created that main page and essentially stated that you wanted no part in Simple, and that you'd only stay on English wikipedia. Because of that, I edited it and let no notice because you had no intention of returning. We don't tolerate hit and run attacks, so that's why it was taken away. Had you showed some indication of staying or wanting to be here, I would have left you a note; but the insult and "contact me elsewhere" comment made it seem like contacting you on here would be pointless. Either way (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. It was a mistake to post that message. However, all my accounts except this one and the one at en.wikipedia all say the same message. The only difference was that here I posted some possibly inflammatory comments that should not have been said. I understand why you deleted them, and I do not criticize your actions in any way. Thanks for clarifying. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps you can review some of my noms? Pmlinediter  Talk 11:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


Do not tell me that one sentence people can not understand, it was very simple written, but how ever. One more thing if you want to leave me a message, please write it above my status template, thank you. Regards, --AleksA 11:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Aleksa Lukic, but that was copyvio. The article was a copy from en. Pmlinediter  Talk 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The "article" also had an infobox that was complex and not simple. An infobox which you copied and pasted off of the English Wikipedia article. As for your status template, you need to fix it then because all I did was click on the new section tab. So, anytime someone adds a section through that, you're going to get that problem. Either way (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have seen that you have deleted page ".ac", and the following reason was "no content". There was one sentence with explanation of in which state is used .ac as a country code top level domain. That's evaluates as a stub (short article) (if we start to delete every single page with few sentences, we will have very bit of articles). --AleksA 11:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't me. Either way (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


The recent IP vandal created several pages. You deleted them under G1 and G3. But from what I could tell, the articles contained the same content. Could you please help explain this (possibly with diffs)? I will be away from the computer for about 18 hours, so it will be a while before my response. Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It was just whatever dropdown reason I happened to hit. Both are acceptable for this. Either way (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this IP; I totally missed it when looking through RC! :-) fr33kman talk 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


What was wrong with this edit? The IP had fixed mistakes in the many mistakes article and you reverted it. Why so? --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T</font> (tell me a secret.</font>) 02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a returning vandal. The edits removed a ton of red links for no clear reason (red links aren't a bad thing necessarily). Either way (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Aleksa Lukic

I noticed you've blocked this user (third block) for persistent copyvios. After reviewing this users contributions and attitude towards both the project and other users, I've extended this to indef due hate speech based personal attacks, persistent copyvios (after multiple warnings), general attitude and lack of useful contribution to the project. Majorly also believes an indef block is warranted. If you disagree, please discuss it on AN prior to reversing. Thanks dude! :) fr33kman talk 14:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Man From Earth

Is this where I'm supposed to talk to you? Well I'm sorry for my mistake, I'll rewrite my stuff and put it up again... TT. I'm not used to writing opinion-free articles so this may take some effort. And I should write in "Simple English"! Got that. I have to finish this article by Sunday midnight so I'll get going...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeniques (talkcontribs) Script error: No such module "Unsigned".

Well all Wikipedia articles must be opinion free and told from a "neutral point of view" so please do your best to keep the opinions out of it. Either way (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
My god, don't erase all my stuff. It's not written as an essay. If you think it needs to be different please make comments or make changes yourself. I'm putting it up again w/ changes Oeniques (talk)
It is written as an essay, whether you are trying to write it as one or not. It doesn't belong in the article so that's why i've removed it. Do not add it back unless you write it as factual statements using reliable sources. Either way (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
No I mean the implications part. I'll back up with more quotes then. Oeniques (talk)
What you're doing is using the quotes to prove a point of view. Again, your contributions are too complex and are not encyclopedic. Either way (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sasuke Uchiha

Hello, I put up the reason why he is a notable character. The whole manga basically revolves around this character and his background. You suggested to add this with the manga series itself but I disagree. Just as does the "English" Wikipedia site has an article on Sasuke, I believe that the simple english site should also have one. Adding Sasuke's entire history to Naruto, I believe is sort of irrelevant to the topic itself and thus should have its own separate page.

We're not English Wikipedia, so we don't have to have the same articles. It may be notable within the manga, but the article does not show why it is notable outside of the manga. Either way (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I added a part that can show why it is notable outside of the manga. I highly recomment that this article stays up, and not be deleted or merged.



Do you mind closing this AFD? I would do it but I am not sure if the same closing method used on EN applies here. I am pretty sure it is the same, but I don't want to mess anything up. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

18px Done by yours truly. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
SHappy, please don't forget to remove the RFDs from the RFD page when you close. I've had to remove both the ones you've closed today. Thanks, Either way (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

I intend to unblock User_talk:SchnitzelMannGreek based on current consensus that we don't block users based on other wiki involvement as a rule, and that the editor is now in good standing, thus the block has served it's purpose of preventing damage. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He was actually blocked for sockpuppeting on this wiki just incase you didn't know that we didn't block him based on en actions. -Djsasso (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I scratch my head also. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
He followed that up by socking here. But current concensus is one strike and gone based on editors blocked on another wiki. He blew is one chance which is why I believe eitherway was pushed to block him. He wasn't an angel here prior to being blocked is basically what I am getting at. -Djsasso (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you link the socking please? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the sock that I know of...don't know if there were others too. Either way (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Normally, I don't take it upon myself to alter others user talk pages... I think that is tacky :) I had archived this section so as not to draw attention. I'll defer to your judgment on whether this should be archived. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

With the media frenzy about the possibility of his death would it make sense to protect the page now. I know we usually don't protect preemptively but I think it would save us from removing some vandalism. What do you think?--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Woops, already done. Thanks!--Gordonrox24 (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It was protected about ten minutes ago by Fr33kman. By the way, I just left you a message on your talk page on En. Either way (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would rather it be unprotected, I'll watchlist it. Please instead use RBI, instead of cutting anon edits altogether. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Take it up with Fr33kman; it was his protection. Either way (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought I did, here :) NonvocalScream (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


I was going to simplify them!--Deoxyribonucleic (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've had articles from August 2008, a year ago, that were copied and pasted from the English Wikipedia and you never touched them since, so I find the "I'll simplify them" claim to be a little hard to believe. This is clearly a persistent pattern with you, and if you add copied and pasted information again, you will be blocked. thank you, Either way (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
And for DNA's info, Aleksa Lukic was blocked for this reason. I think he deserves a last warning. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well Aleksa had a lot of other issues as well. Majorly talk 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi, couldn't you have just redirected it to Pokemon? I took alot of time simplifying the article, and I wrote that whole thing over at the English wiki myself. If you look in the History, Bws2cool is me. I don't appreciate you just removing everything I have done. I am trying to help the articles that are notable, that have been in brawl and such. If you don't want me here, I can just go back to there and leave these articles looking horrible with one pharagraph and being close to deletion. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need hundreds of redirects for Pokemon. Just because you wrote the article on the other Wikipedia does not mean you do not have to credit it here too. I saw very few signs of simplification going on in the article. Please take a look at Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia which I gave you on your talk page. Either way (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried my best to simplify it. If you thought something was complicated, you could have changed it. I dont see how you deleted Lucario, but simply placed a tag on Mudkip. Why wasnt Lucario given that same chance? Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Mudkip was actually credited, whereas Lucario was not. Mudkip can/will be deleted though if it does not get simplified as it is just essentially a copy and paste of the page it started from on En. wiki with a little simplification. Either way (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I feel discuraged from editing here anymore, so if you want to contact me, do so here Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. Just like the English Wikipedia, we too have our only policies and guidelines that we expect all editors to follow. Either way (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit of caution

I want to take a moment to talk with you... edits like this don't help anyone. They don't help the discussion. All it would serve to do is cause more heat than light. And amounts to a bad faith assumption. Please reconsider in the future. I made the subpage, with good intentions. Last night, I also made three new articles. The night before, I made what will be a GA candidate. So... I don't think cracy is the main goal here, but I'd like for you to not accuse of that either, if posssible. It is with the utmost respect that I request this of you, and all I ask, is that you only consider the request. We are on the same team. Very respectfully, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good intentions or not, it still contributes to the continuingly increasing bureaucracy of Simple Wikipedia in my opinion. Either way (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Regardless of our disagreement on the request for undeletion, for which I was a bit too abrasive... I think your a good editor. Your work and volunteer hours are appreciated. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Either way (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive/Requests

You protected MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist because it is a "potential target". You will probably want to do the same for MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive/Requests, that I just created. Mythdon (talkchanges) 00:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you have removed the request formatting, please delete the page. Mythdon (talkchanges) 00:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? Either way (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it is no longer needed. Mythdon (talkchanges) 00:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
It's the talk page for the blacklist that provides a scope of what the talk page is to be used for. There is no reason to delete it. Either way (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not talking about the talk page. I am talking about MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist/Archive/Requests. Mythdon (talkchanges) 01:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I've deleted it. Usually it's best to wait until we need an archive to set up the archive. Either way (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Also, why do you consider it bureaucratic to have the request area formatted the way I started it? Mythdon (talkchanges) 01:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's an unnecessary process set up for something that can easily be solved without all those steps. And will be used very rarely. Either way (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it unnecessary? Mythdon (talkchanges) 01:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it's something that can easily be solved without all those steps. And will be used very rarely. Either way (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You already said that. Mythdon (talkchanges) 01:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I know I did. That's my rationale for why it's unnecessary. Either way (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


I did a Google search on Poopork, an article that was just created by an IP, and found no sources, so much absence of sources, that I find this article as nonsense or probably even vandalism. What do you think? Mythdon (talkchanges) 21:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC) To avoid confusion, I've also asked Griffinofwales at User talk:Griffinofwales#Poopork. Mythdon (talkchanges) 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it. Just put a tag on it next time and an admin will take care of it. There isn't a need for this amount of discussion on it I'd say. Either way (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I did tag it, but wanted some input from other users who are more experienced than I am here. I see you have deleted it as vandalism. It looks like I understated the problem. Mythdon (talkchanges) 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mythdon

Please semi-protect my user talk page. I am being harassed by IP addresses. Mythdon (talkchanges) 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you want anything oversighted. Majorly talk 22:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


If you're able to, please suppress the edit summary in this diff so only administrators can view it. Thanks. Mythdon (talkchanges) 02:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Either way (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you suppress this conversation so people can't find it later? If you do, remove it and make an edit to your talk page before doing so, and don't imply that this exists. Please. Mythdon (talkchanges) 02:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather not. Either way (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. Thanks for suppressing the edit. Mythdon (talkchanges) 02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you also suppress the harassment at User talk:Mythdon? Mythdon (talkchanges) 02:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it...

But we are trying to switch to {{reflist}} on articles... I was ignoring it cause I didn't want to get involved. But I thought I would let you know before you take reverting too far. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Show me where this has been decided? I'm quoting directly from the /doc for the reflist tag: "Note that there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references; when normal-sized font is more appropriate on an article, use instead." Either way (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The doc is enWP's. Not simple's. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
And since we don't have a doc, we follow theirs. Either way (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that since the decision was made here, it wouldn't show at en. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I will have to look, I know the conversation took place as we were doing it so that switching to two column referencing would be easier. As well most auto tools such as AWB are coded to automatically switch it which would indicate it was meant to be that way on en atleast. (yes yes not en). Normal size font is rarely more appropriate imho. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
THe references are easily differentiated from the rest of the article because they're in a section that says "references." That they're a normal size font is not a hinderance by any means. If 2-column referencing is needed in an article, the <references /> can easily be replaced with {{reflist|2}}. Either way (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
All I am saying is there is no point for either of you to fight about it. Both are acceptable. Stop reverting each other. There are almost no circumstances where one is better than the other. Just leave each others edit. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
And I have no problem with that. My explanation above was just to explain why I choose to use it when I add references to articles. In my two reverts, I was restoring the status quo. He was changing them to his preference rather than respecting the preference of the creator of the article/reference lists. Either way (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  I haven't reverted. I was sure that consensus said that we should use reflist, but apparently I'm wrong. @Either way, Status quo? Since when? Almost all the articles here use reflist as do the ones at en. (and it isn't because I switched them all). WP:OWN? Griffinofwales (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
He meant on the specific article. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Status quo meaning the author put it in that way and you changed it away from the author's preference. Like when I added references to August 24 and you changed it to the reflist instead of the references / which is the way I put it in. Either way (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
For full disclosure, I would have also made the edit he made. However, I would not make it the only thing I change as I think that is a waste of resources. But if I am editing a whole article I do change to the reflist because it does make an article look much better. I just don't want the situation to escalate. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
And if you did it somewhere where I had added the references and put the tag in with references /, I would have reverted you. To me, if there's no consensus and no major difference between the two, it basically amounts to a British v. American English situation: whatever the author put in is what should stand. Either way (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No it actually doesn't amount to that situation. There is a major difference in that pages look really bad with the references / tag. Editors can and should make stylistic changes to make pages be more readable. Remember you don't own the page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't look "really bad." I'm just ending this here and will go back to editing. There are plenty of articles out there that need to be fixed (apparently) so hopefully we can all work on that instead of debating this. Either way (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

<[email protected]: Since I'm on RC all the time, I look for problems with edits, since IPs usually do not copyedit their contributions. I add tags as a hobby in the meantime. That's why I have thousands of minor edits. My original thought when I replaced the references thing was that Either Way did not know about the template. So, when Either way reverted, I dropped the subject (per previous experience with admins). Griffinofwales (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

british english

Are you british? I want to know how the brits came up with that rule. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry to intrude, Either... Grif, this may be interesting... en:American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Was just about to link that. Thanks, scream. And no, I'm not British; I'm an English teacher, though. Either way (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I have bookmarked the link for future reference. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • English is may favourite ( :D) subject. Either, are you interest in poetry? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Not so much really. More of a modern novel (20th century and up) fan. Either way (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • A particular hobby of mine, more of an amateur. We could use an English Wikipoet but that might be more of a proposal for meta. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


I spent the better part of an hour looking for stuff on the page. I found nothing. No acclamations, awards, not even anything newsworthy. Good catch. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Helms

I put up a new, cleaner article and also deleted that section in my talk page. I never intended to vandalize. Is there still a van-4 on me, even though I vandalized 0 times and am accused of vandalizing once? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. MC8 (b · t) 22:54, Sunday August 30 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and furthermore you clearly should not have recreated the page. I had tagged it for deletion. Goblin 22:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

You made completely inappropriate changes to a Wikipedia article. So, yes. And your "cleaner" version is still not neutral. It is totally against him, basically. Either way (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What do want me to say in defense of him? Please refrain from doing anything on this until you have read at least the lead of the enwp article. And I will not rest until the 4IM is lowered to a 2 Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I HAVE read on the lead on the En. article. Maybe you should too to see that A. he's not called a racist and B. that there are things in the lead that don't focus on racism such as leading the modern conservative movement. Or, you know, his personal history like being a journalist. That was given no emphasis but the race things were. Either way (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page removal

Dear Either Way, I'd kindly like to comment in asking you why you unfortunately were suddenly deleting my page: user talk:, which stood there quietly all the time doing no harm to anybody here as elsewhere ?? Thank you in advance for explaining matters at hand, but meanwhile beïng sincerely Yours: D.A. Borgdorff (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is A. a copyright violation to copy and paste from one wiki to another without attribution and B. unnecessary to be hosted here. We aren't a host for your talk page after you get indefinitely blocked somewhere else. Either way (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your rapid and transit contribution as conclusion but flawed where all my contributions are originally given free under the GNU CC (GDF License), so I didn't violate any copy-right of my own works on all the Wikipediae. I do however like You to restore my page(s) as stated from the beginning onwards, though this my English vocabulary is not my mother-language \ so to say *natively* speaking. I do really hope you're willing too to understand some of my complaints about threats for blocking up here as well - without reading into all the circumstances or backgrounds et cetera. Again, with kind regards, I'll remain truly Yours: D.A. Borgdorff (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
For the GDFL, attribution is required. See the "Under the following conditions" section of this page. It is not enough to just copy it; you must also provide where it comes from. But, I will not restore this. Again, there is no need for you to host an archive for your old talk page on another Wikipedia here. There is no connection between there and your talk page here. Now, please, go edit articles rather than focusing on this issue. Thanks, Either way (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll rest my case for also three times thy ships law in consideration. Keeping noblesse to be obliged, I am: D.A. Borgdorff (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC) ... with tnx again for this elucidation ---dAb +>

Agree with the Franklin (song) delete

It had actually been at Franklin before this evening, but I moved it to Franklin (song) to make Franklin a disam. That OK? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is what okay? Either way (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That I threw up a disam Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Either way (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

i had no idea sorry...

that user was a former banned user i had no idea sorry. I'am not a vandal. I just added that disney movie Antz. (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Push (movie)

Notability was not good enough i listed who starred in the film but what else do you need? Negano (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources showing it's a notable film. Just because it exists and has people starring in it doesn't mean it is notable necessarily. Either way (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject References Invitation

File:Citing sources.png
WikiProject References
Would you like to be a member of Wiki-Project References? Your support would be highly valued. To join, please click here. For more information see its homepage. Thanks. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. I don't tend to join Wikiprojects. Either way (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

New messages

Hello, Only. You have new messages at Christianrocker90's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--   CR90  00:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:DRV for the discussion.--   CR90  01:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Prime numbers

I dont see how my changes were too complex, the simple english wiki article I referenced is way more complex, to be fair, if what I did was too complex, then that article must be erased. Quoting the rules, sentences/words should be simple not the ideas. Thanks for discouraging people. AngelTC (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the words you used in prime numbers or vector subspace are simple. You may feel otherwise, but I feel that it is the language that was complex, not the ideas. Either way (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that the vector subspace might be not that simple, however in the prime numbers article I wrote one simple sentence. I dont think there's too much words there to make it simplier.AngelTC (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sorry!

Hello, Only. You have new messages at I-on's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


100px The Original Barnstar
For helping me with the article List of chess Grandmasters. It would have taken me hours and hours to fix that stupid list. But with your help and your shortcut (which I never would of thought of), you did it all in a few minutes. Thanks! Keep up the good work and the smart thinking which I lack. XD Happy editing, Ian ♠♣♦♥ McCarty 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, glad I could help out, Either way (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for taking the trouble to kindly point that out to me. You're right...but the first one, about the London Underground, the user had removed parts of the article and then put it back. The second one was purely my fault, sorry. Well, thank you anyway, and happy editing! Nobody can, at least, be doubtful of your great job on all parts of Wikipedia! Classical Esther 12:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The only thing the first IP removed from the London Underground article is the wikilink around the word "ban." Hardly warning worthy. Either way (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Really? Oh...oops. I'd better be more careful next time. Thanks! Classical Esther 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Hello, Only. You have new messages at Belinda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Belle (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

pbp89 my conserends...

one i feel like he/she is bashing me. two i wish he/she wouldnt critisize me 3 are u ok with me being on sew? thank you.

DflII (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC).

I'm sorry you feel that way. Nothing he is doing is wrong. He is just telling you about policies and the way things work on Simple English Wikipedia. Either way (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


hi I can not speak very well their lingua.mas I'm from Brazil I do not speak Portuguese and English I use the wikipedia pages of simple English in order to help wikipedia Brazil.

why I will not move in simple English wikipedia then I do a stupid and damage to wikipedia

tank you, good luck

obrigado,boa sorte User:mclucas603 (Mclucas603 (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Well please do not use our website just to host your own personal website, basically. That's what it seems like you're doing. Either way (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
He copypasted the same at my talk, too. --Diego (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

History of the United States

Could you help me on the lead? I'm going to nom it for GA once I finish the 20th century and add 100 refs Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 05:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Re Fra Angelico, thanks for pointing that out to me. Amandajm (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Dodd

I'll take a look later tonight... you want the thoughts on this talk page, or the article talk page? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Article talk page preferred so that a running list can be made/so others can work with the list too if they so choose. Thanks, Either way (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, will do. (ps. the import tool already did the attribution for you :) )
Also if you get a chance, I'm having a hard time with a article I imported tonight, due to the inherent complexity. It is a law related article, perhaps I might could talk you into taking a glance at it when you have time? Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I know it already did; I just like having the permalink directly to the history of En. available. Just a preference thing. I assume you're talking about wrongful life with your article? I'll try to take a look some time tomorrow (I'm headed off here for the night relatively soon), if not, I will try my hand at it this week at some point. Thanks, Either way (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is the one... I've re read it a couple of times, and I think I've bitten off more than I can chew, or I am fatigued and also need to go to bed. Thank you for your help. Bestly, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


I'm curious how disruptive I have been here so far? If I have a fault, it's that I have no problem challenging authority. I'm not sure I've done anything deserving of a warning here. If I have violated something here, please let me know. I don't intend to be disruptive, but often it gets brought to me. What happened on en wikipedia is it's own deal with reference desks and stuff unrelated to Simple English Wikipedia. Whatever happened for the block there was taken care of. I've taken my 'original research' elsewhere. Please let me know if I can help you with something related to the goings on here and any questions you have about my intentions surrounding Simple English Wikipedia. When Lauryn was nice enough to leave me a welcoming message, she mentioned that I can change any pages that I want, however she failed to mention a delineation between making changes in one space versus making them in another space, and she certainly didn't mention that you can get blocked for editing in the wrong place! Please direct me to the rule. --NeptuneroverFile:Neptune symbol.svgคุยกับผู้ใช้ 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a one strike rule with indefinitely blocked users from other Wikipedias. You were blocked, in part, on the English Wikipedia for not treating it like an encyclopedia. Right now, I see you not treating this like an encyclopedia by playing around with your user page and user boxes. Just like you were told there, we are not MySpace. Please focus on contributing to the encyclopedia and not on playing with your user page. Either way (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well I thank you for letting me know. I don't mean to do anything afoul of the rules. There are lots of things I want to do, I just get sidetracked on certain things. Translating an article is more work than screwing around with userboxes, and so I've tended to fall into the latter activity lately, although that is not my goal here. I believe lots of things can be explained simply. Or at least it's worth a try. --NeptuneroverFile:Neptune symbol.svgคุยกับผู้ใช้ 17:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Well please focus on the "hard work" that is translating articles rather than the boxes. Thanks, Either way (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I just realised the new article I've been working on 'History of Arab Christians' is basically already included in the history section of the current Arab Christians article, making mine perhaps superfluous. The topic might not warrant an extra article here, and so I'm thinking I'll just meld it with the current history section. What do you think? --NeptuneroverFile:Neptune symbol.svgคุยกับผู้ใช้ 06:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


I didn't know how to go about renaming an article, so I tried inventing the wheel. Thank you. --NeptuneroverFile:Neptune symbol.svgคุยกับผู้ใช้ 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I just realized there is a 'move' tab at the top of each page. How could I have missed it? It is as if that tab has existed in a blind spot for me and I have never until today pressed it. Allow me to say loudly, duh! --NeptuneroverFile:Neptune symbol.svgคุยกับผู้ใช้ 08:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi. You are good at this thats why im asking you to look trough the Oba Chandler article that i have expanded today. Feel free to do the changes you find improving.. Thanks.--Sinbad (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Whew, thanks, Either way!

85px Classical Esther has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

Thanks for deleting the request for deletion. I can't believe I was so stupid! I accidentally saw Crips as Crisps and, after some fruitless and silly research for a gang called "Crisps", I nominated for deletion, and found out the mistake a few steps too late, to my horror. I'll try to be more careful next time. :P Well, thank you once again, you are really a great administrator here. Yours sincerely, Classical Esther 12:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)