User talk:Serenacw

Mercy Ministries

I'm asuming that your user:202.92.102.220.

If you look at your I.P. I responded and said that it was ok to delete becaue I checked it refernce and it was invaild.--Scott3 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Serenacw, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Scott3 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas

Considering my only edit to Isabel Lucas, ever, was [1].... I'm not really sure what you're talking about Mad Jack 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... this was the edit that added that bit.[2] On the 19th, by an anon... Cheers, Mad Jack 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to sign comments

Oops. Sorry. Thanks for chiding me. Albatross2147 00:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.) GeorgeMoney (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Border Collie Cross Kelpie

If anyone could tell me how to read the article Border Collie Cross Kelpie I would be really grateful.It was deleted a while ago but I need to read it.Serenacw 01:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to post your request at WP:DRV#Content_review. GeorgeMoney (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsong popularity

Could you move our comments from the wrong paragraph to the right one in talk:Hillsong_Church? I'd do it, but feel uncomfortable changing other people's comments. You have my permission to move my replies to you to the correct place. ;) Ashmoo 06:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Peter Brock

Your recent edit to Peter Brock (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC) That was a legit edit Serenacw 05:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quasyboy

I've been wanting to get back to you about The Saddle Club page. The only time I did an edit on that page was when I was adding it to Category:Discovery Kids shows, Just so were clear. Quasyboy 2:49 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's OK ;) Quasyboy 2:58 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Malory Towers

Dear Serenacw, I noticed you edited the Malory Towers article to remove the words "apparently lesbian (subtext)". On a personal level, I would much rather those words were removed, since I enjoyed reading the series when I was younger and I did not find any so-called subtext in the books,( and I don't think that any fans of Enid Blyton relish the thought of her books being interpreted in a sexual light). However, you can see that a user named Elenis has made this edit specifically to illustrate what she considered a valid point, namely that a lesbian subtext exists in the books. I persume she (and some others on Wikipedia) might have something to say about the removal of the words. Without the words "lesbian subtext" the entire paragraph added by Elenis loses relevance, especially the line about the Sugar Rush series. Therefore I humbly suggest that it would be more appropriate if you were to write a note on the discussion page of the Malory Towers article explaining why the "lesbian subtext" does not exist, citing proof, or lack of proof therof. Otherwise, the removal of the aforementioned couple of words might be considered vandalism. Also, there remains the question of what is to be done with the rest of the paragraph. As I said, it is irrelavent without the lesbian angle. Should it be removed? I remain, Yours faithfully, Savio mit electronics 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. You are right, it is a matter of interpretation. However, to avoid possible future flame wars,it is better that you write a note in the discussion page of the Malory Towers article as soon as is possible for you. Thank you. Yours, Savio mit electronics 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]