User talk:Limonns

March 2008

Please refrain from posting tabloid junk on Wikipedia. The material on Jackson family finances is not substaniated with facts.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoldello (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Wilhelmina Will. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gwernol 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my talk page. Please take a little more care when reverting users, especially when using tools like Twinkle. Thanks, Gwernol 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Camden Town. Hi, using Twinkle, you are responsible for your edits and replacing adverts for estate agents is NOT considered good practice. Please take more care and read the edit summaries (and in this case, the talk page). Thanks. Kbthompson (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan

Sure why not. I just figured I'd put them down somewhere. I dunno where exactly to place them myself,, just figured they'd be worth a mention. Nicknackrussian (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra K. Pachauri

Hi Limonns. I think that the content is from http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm so I deleted it. And I wrote this into the summary field. --88.84.21.192 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

You are "almost positive they have". Really? And are you an expert on pheromones? Did you actually bother reading the so-called reliable sources cited? Well then, let me demonstrate. The source that supports why this is relevant to the article is:

Traill, R.R. (2005) How Popperian positivism killed a good-but-poorly-presented theory — Insect communication by infrared. Ondwelle: Melbourne

Looks good, right. Except have a look at the publisher, Ondwelle's website: [1] Isn't it odd that all the "books" and "monographs" published by this reliable publisher is by the same person, a certain Traill, R.R. I wonder who runs Ondwelle Publishing? Well, the contact address is there. What a surprise, its [email protected]

What we actually have here is some one promoting their own pseudo-scientific theories by vanity publishing, then trying to give it credibility by inserting into a Wikipedia article. So are you still "almost positive"? Please revert yourself, since you have re-added misleading information lacking reliable sources. Thanks Rockpocket 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-reverted. You are free to disagree all you wish, but you are not free to re-introduce material that does not meet WP:RS simply to promoting vanity theories. If you plan to revert content editor of an administrator, especially one that has contributed largely to sourcing the article, its probably a good idea to do some research into what you a reverting. Rockpocket 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. And I didn't mean to be rude. You are doing fine anti-vandalism work and good edits will occasionally get caught up among them. No harm done, keep up the good work! Rockpocket 18:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box

You recently reverted a contribution to box and foolishly claimied it to be vandalism. Please do not be so quick to slap a negative label on an edit you disagree with. My contribution was positive: I removed and simplified some material which is duplicated on another main page. There is no point to have the same thing said twice identically. Pkgx (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of East Nashville Crips for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article East Nashville Crips is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Nashville Crips until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]