User talk:No Guru/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

== Lame == Clearly the announcement was put there with good reason; many people reading up on Oprah through wikipedia would be happy to know that she has selected a new book and that the announcement will take place on Friday. Wikipedia was created to inform, above all else, and there's really no reason for admins like yourself to take all of the fun away from the site. Get over yourself and let wiki be what it was meant to be.

THX A LOT

I Do not need yours spam on my page

PLEASE HELP

I tried taking it up with the editor (user:stoneface02), but he is being unreasonable. I cited my information and it is unbiased and it is valuable. Will you PLEASE help me with this situation. I am not deleting any of his information and would appreciate the same respect. THANK YOU IF YOU CAN HELP AT ALL.

I've even tried compromising, but he seems to have either gathered more names of his own or friends of his to form a "consensus" to leave it off. Kruse56 21:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Colbert

Any idea on how long Colbert will be sprotected? The "Quotes" section title makes no sense... if you wouldn't mind tweaking that back to something that makes more sense, that would be great. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you there? --198.185.18.207 16:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you sprotected, so I thought you'd be a fine contact. The issue is that there is only one sourced quote there, so "Quotes" is wrong. Also, the self-referential heading is unencyclopedic. "Quotes by Colbert" is unnecessary as the article is already about Colbert. If anything it should just be "Quote". But that doesn't make too much sense either... so I had changed it to "Commencement address". Thanks for the response. --198.185.18.207 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey No Guru, how's life treating you? The reason I have "Quotes by Colbert" as opposed to just quotes is because on several articles I've edited I've also included a section called "Quotes about...." I don't think there is a WP policy on this, but if there is, could you point me to it so I can enlighten myself? You'll see why I have been labelling these sections on the Floyd Abrams article I wrote. Granted, if there isn't a section where other people are quoted, it may be pointless to include the "...by Colbert" - any insight? --DavidShankBone 18:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it back, mainly because without a "Quotes about Colbert" section I agree with the anon user that it doesn't make sense. I probably edit with future additions in mind more than is necessary. But if I stumble upon a good quote by a respected individual, then I will probably change it. I'm not looking for one, though. Keep up the good work : ) Dave

chessGuru.net

Hi there Could you tell me why was chessguru.net removed from Chess/External Links/Learning chess on 20 september 2006 . If I'm not mistaken the reason for its removal was that it was a commercial link. But that couldn't be it! The site is absolutely free.

University of Santo Tomas

I need backup on this, I might exceed 3RR. Also, I highly suspect the image is copyrighted. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

IchessU

A) Sorry about the archive B) The guy banned over it - I conviced him that Chess University is a good think.

Please return the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikfi (talk • contribs)

Again you misrepresent the facts. You were banned by User:Guinnog and you didn't convince him of anything. -- No Guru 01:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, why both of you make the life so hard? Agree with me it's a good link and very rellevant for chess education. I dont spam, I publish it only once under learning chess it belongs to. Please stop delisting it.

Spanish Armada

See you've been picking off a lot of vandals on this article, the latest being on the English Channel section. I just want to revert to a former edit that doesn't state that the fleet was "delayed by excellent weather" (first sentence), but that might screw up other edits you've made. Wot u fink?--Shtove 00:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Jonathan Papelbon

Sure, I completely understand that philosophy. In fact, it's one to which I subscribe. However, the content, if left like that, would severely detract from the article, as the header was unencylopedic and the content was rife with spelling/grammar errors. I don't have a problem with leaving the content in, but it's beyond me why you just reverted without attempting to fix the errors, as I just did hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 06:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hockey and Blue Jays

Do you have a favorite hockey team in Canada or are you a fan of the Blue Jays? Because I kind of like them too. Kruse56 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Kruse56

Dispute Resolution

No Guru, I have set up a RfC for User:Kruse56 due to his multiple violations of WP:Attack in his personal attacks towards me. He has turned the David Ortiz discussion personal. Please see Talk:David Ortiz and User talk:Stoneice02, as well as the accusation made on your own page. Please then visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kruse56 and comment. Thanks in advance. Stoneice02 05:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Those nifty boxes

Hi No Guru,

Just a question, how does one use those boxes you have on your user page? Is there a list of them somewhere? -- Kester Teague 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)

Vandalism on "film"

Reporting random, obvious vandalism on "film", 17th Oct. (two days ago). Can't clear it up: blocked IP address (community address). Just thought I'd let you know. --Kingers 18:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mays Edits

I removed the HOF template by accident and nothing more. I did explain why most of the information was edited in the summary. As there is only so much room in the edit field, there is only so much I can do. That article has a number of unsourced statements, statements of conjecture and opinion, and repeated information. This is the case with many of the articles that you seem to come accross. It would be great to get some help.Tecmobowl 04:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK but you did it again, even after it was pointed out by my edit summary. -- No Guru 04:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just a warning: Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a borderline vandal and tends to act as if he owns articles, removes content, and acts as an expert when he is not. A lot of his "improvements" are removing information and poor rewrites. You have been warned. TV Newser Tipline 04:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Campbell

I noticed that you reversed my editing by removing 'The Honourable' off his name. However, I wish to let you know that it by the Style of Address of Canada that he's termed 'The Honourable' while he's in office[1].

The Style of Address appears on all the current Premiers of Canada and is done according to the policy of Wikipedia.--Cahk 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing vandalism from my user page. Much appreciated! --Jay†Litman 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a vandalism but ...

Hi, what to do with this user User:Williamdevino posting articles like this [2]. I do not think it is normal. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for removing that edit. --BigDT 19:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Browns/Pittsburgh Stogies

I noticed that you took down the proposed deletion, which is fine, but all major sources of baseball history shows this team as both, not as just the Browns or the Stogies. I proposed it for two different reasons. 1) It's historically accurate, and 2) The historically accurate version exists in Wikipedia. There is no need for both versions, and at the very least, could be merged together into the accurate version thus expanding its text. Neonblak 07:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

More Vandalism

The IP it appears you slapped for 'first offence' on Mahatma Ghandi a few hours ago has done something similar just now.

Hello

Nice to find another Wikipedian with a Van-inspired username. --Dweller 17:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Van morrison Article

Thanks so much! After all the work I've put in and the fact that no one has ever raised any issues with what I've written, I was taken aback! If you ever feel like you could change what I've written to better the article, I would certainly not question it. I've always left any new contributions unless it was vandalism. That's finally stopped, for now. The question of nationality (the flag issue) is still not resolved. It was changed back and forth for a while, and then someone took the flag off completely. I don't really know but I think it should be the Northern Irish (UK) flag, since he was born there. But it's a really touchy issue with the people of this area so I've stayed out of it. Thanks again, (Mucho!!) Agadant 03:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Hi, I saw you just blocked somebody that I had reported. Can you please clean up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Thanks Corpx 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits by CyberAnth

I see that you have reverted User:CyberAnth's changes to the Hank Aaron article. If you check the history of the article, you will see I did the same before you and he reverted me. Furthermore, if you look at his edit history, you will see that recently he has been removing non-controversial information from numerous articles in the same manner and that in none of the cases has he even deigned to discuss his issues on the talk page first. I have also posted on his talk page without success. I have posted all of this more generally on the administrator noticeboard. I agree that this user surely means well, but he is disrupting wikipedia. I do not have admin status, so I implore you to take a closer look at this matter and take steps necessary to get this user to understand his errors. Indrian 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)