Sn0wflake/ArchivedTalk01 |
In 17:45, 16 July 2004 I was welcomed by .
= AC =
Don t worry about bothering me; you can do that whenever you like. ;)
If you re referring to and don t worry about your past mistakes! Such is the wiki way. :)
While I m here, I should let you know that it s customary to sign your comments; you can do this by typing four tildes (~) after what you write, like this: ~~~~. That way people know who said what and when. (If you don t want to leave a timestamp, just use three tildes instead of four). Happy editing! -- 06:30, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
= The Seatbelts =
Thank you for your polite note on my talk page. I m still confused about this article, but you and others have made me doubt myself enough that I ve changed my vote to abstain. With the amount of Keep votes the article has, it should easily survive VfD.
I didn t actually just take the first Google hit and base my decision on that. Most Google hits are for the devices installed in cars. Of the few relevant hits, there are two sites that list the band as having formed in 2048. I m still confused about that. Could you please explain whatever it is that I m not getting. My head hurts thinking about this one. 
Some helpful information would be what year the band formed and also a list of its discography, by year.
I m sorry that one of your first experiences here was a VfD listing. All I can say is that the information I had to go on (the www) made this band appear to be fictional. Welcome to the Wikipedia, and I hope to see you around. 04:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
= Children of Bodom =
Well, I m only working when in moods, but yeah, I m watching the article anyway. -- 11:49, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
Hi; I know this is horribly belated (my apologies!), but I ve gone over the Children of Bodom article as per your request. It looks fine, aside from a few minor spelling/grammar/syntax errors which I ve corrected. There was some ambiguity in the second paragraph regarding who invited whom; I think I ve cleared this up. The only other thing I d bring up is the fact that you re referring to the band memebrs by their first names. While this makes the article sound warmer (more human , I suppose), it goes against the Manual of Style which (unless my memory fails me) states that the subject(s) of the article should be addressed either by full name or last name (it s just more professional that way). The MoS is a set of guidelines rather than firm rules, of course, so I didn t change the names in the article. You don t have to either, but I thought I d mention it.
If there s anything else you need a hand with, don t hesitate to ask. I ll try not to be so slow with my reply next time! Cheers, -- 03:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
=La Femme Nikita=
Hello, I plan to do some more work on Nikita, the series, in the near future. It needs a rewrite, a lot more information could be added, and it should probably have it s own article. I you want to work on it please go ahead and we ll work on it together. I just wrote the article about 10:09, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Just found out now how this talk page thing works. -- 04:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
= Anathema =
I took this discussion away from the Anathema talk page.
Anyway I kinda do feel insulted by your comments. Had you carefully research you would ve seen I editted quite some portions of text for other bands, incl Death, Napalm Death, Bolt Thrower. Anyway I largely decided to step out of the Wikipedia community as I grew quite fed up with many things, largely referring to vandalism, contributions of the uninformed, lack of uniformity and edit wars. I came to the conclusion that this process doesn t work w/o a good editor. O well maybe I ll keep an eye on one or two pages - or maybe I don t.
As an aside, the statistics are perhaps redundant, but are meant to give a quick overview w/o having to read the entire bio to know if you ve got the right band or if they re of interest.
15:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Quit Over that It s your call, but that seems like somehing too minor to quit over. If you have been meaning to quit and were waiting for the last straw , don t pin this on me. The Statistics argument is something very on-going in the Wikipedia; as you can see, about 40% of the metal bands articles use it, the rest doesn t. I am one of those that defend that they are useless. So, as the current main editor of 19:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:: I am pasting this here for convenience : Okay, so let s evaluate what is present on the Statistics section, in four lines (from a random article): ::* Genre: Death metal, Grindcore ::* Country: UK ::* Status: Active ::* Time: 1986- ::And now what is present on a simple textual description, four lines:English, Liverpool, deloper of doom metal, founded in 1990, original name Pagan Angel. ::Damn, now I am left wondering wether knowing if the band is still active is all that important when you are going to read the article anyway. Do you see mine (and of pretty much ALL of the other editor s) point of view, now -- 15:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
=RCR=
Thanks. I made a quick job of it. I know all those guys from way back. I was in High School band with Jim. 22:52, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
= Doro Pesch =
Hey there. :) Do you think you could develop Doro a bit further I am going to start work on 14:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:I ll be happy to expand Doro, as thanks to your fine work with 02:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Btw, I moved 14:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, that might be a little confusing at first for people who don t know about Doro s career, and ultimately it would ideal for 18:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:Good point! I guess 05:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
= Re: Question =
Hmmm. That s a tricky question to answer. 14:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
= Tagging articles =
Please put semi-permanent templates like that only are useful to editors, on talk pages (the only exception I can think of would be the different stub templates). This is to 08:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Reply on your talk page. To summarise: articles needing expansion are not useful to third-parties. Having a simple useful flag on the page doesn t do any harm. -- 16:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
= The Underdog Project =
Since you made such a big deal about the image in 01:36, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC). :Done. --
=Let s trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle=
Thanks - Yea I saw that on the Daily Show and couldn t help but find out more and share my findings. 02:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
= AJ pic =
I see that you have again changed the pic to a fair use pic. I m sure that you have not had the chance to reply to my posing on fair use yet so i will give you a chance. I just wanted to let you know that the pic page still shows the old site where the free pic was. please cite where you took the pic from when you get a chance. 23:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) :I sincerely don t care. If you want to rv to PD, then please do so. The image is from [http://www.933thebone.com], and thus I conclude that it s strictly promotional; I have personally never had problems with such pictures. Have a nice day. -- 03:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::PS: I didn t change it again, your reversion simply wasn t processed.
= =
You re welcome! To be honest, I looked for an image and couldn t find one that seemed to work. If it s going to be a photograph of a band (which is about the best I can think of), it should be an undisputedly important band (I m thinking ( Sarah ) 23:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
= Re: Multi-stub =
I ve noticed people doing this too. Personally I think it s rather excessive; articles should have as little meta data in them as possible. In the case of 03:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC) :A very bad move. The multi-stubbing is encouraged, as it serves a useful purpose. A generic stub tag will put an article into aone single large category (so large that it is seriously harming Wikipedia s servers), to be lost among other stubs on every conceivable subject. The subcategory stub tags are necessary to be able to (a) reduce the servers workload, and (b) keep track of where the stubs are. By necessity, a proportion of articles fall into two categories - either they are on two separate subjects or on a subject that overlaps into two areas. Double-tagging them is the best way of ensuring that the stubs can be found easily by editors working on subjects that are related to them. If you wish to comment on this practice, I suggest you do so at 23:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= =
Nooooo. Please don t abstain. Yes, some of the points that 20:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I respect your decision, but I am getting rather frustrated by the opions expressed by people who clearly haven t taken a good look at the evidence, and who are basing their comments on the now irrelevant fact that the editor who start this article also wrote another article, which turned out to be completely spurious. They have t bothered to fairly assess the work that I have done to get this article on a sound footing. 00:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Thank you! 01:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= Philosophy of Chemistry =
I received your note and appreciate the sentiment. Also, I appreciate the fact that the article in its early form was pretty much of a mess, and your skepticism, along with some others, as to whether it could be made into a real encyclopedia article was a valuable spur to those of us who thought it could be. That s how wiki is supposed to work! Doesn t it feel good when it does work out right -- 21:15, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
= Jupe =
Hi Snowflake - you wrote: Could you please read the HTML comment right at the top of the article before you start editing next time I don t mean it in a bad way, but the comment is there and it s quite clear. :... and is against stub sorting policy. If the article belongs in two stub categories, it gets either two stub messages, or is classified as a disambiguation page and gets none. In this case, it is actuually two short articles, each of which could be extended separately (and each of which can, in this way, have its individual stub template removed). I have reverted the file to the two stubs and removed the HTML message, since, as pointed out, this is not the way stubs are sorted. As to the article already being in both stub categories (which the HTML message stated), it was not. It is now, thanks to the two stub subcategory messages. Please do not change this... I don t want to have to revert it again. See also the comments at 23:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::replied. PS: I don t want to have to revert it again ; please don t use that fucking tone with me. I m not some vandal. Thanks. -- 03:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) Hi again - You wrote: My bad for forgetting that the rules of the Wikipedia actively incentivate article cluttering (a general critic; nothing against you). :It s not an active incentive for article cluttering, it s a deliberate policy to stop Wikipedia crashing. The more articles a template is used on, the more damage it does to the servers. By adding 04:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) PS - I apologise if you thought I was treating you like a vandal (although my tone was far less offensive than your response above). If you hadn t done something that looked like vandalism, I wouldn t have. Next time, do something more useful, like splitting the article into the two separate articles it deserves, rather than reverting an article that was being edited correctly. ::Sure. That certainly looked like vandalism. Any fool can see that. I will make sure to do more productive things in the future, such as writing novel-lenght replies. Have a nice day. -- 03:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= Heavy Metal genrebox =
I have reverted the heavy metal genrebox back to cyan. Silver is already used for electronica.
Wikipedia s color guidlines for music genres is at .
01:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Thank you for the information. -- 03:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= University of Nottingham =
I am curious as to why you reverted my changes on the University of Nottingham page. Speaking as a current student of the institution, there are six faculties: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/general/schools.phtml
There are 30,000 students at the University: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/planning/statistics/summary.htm
I m open to criticism and, as I m pretty new to Wiki, pretty wet behind the ears too! As I m not a registered user just yet, the name s John! -- 195.157.190.74
:I am terribly sorry for this incident. I have replied on the Talk page of your IP. -- 01:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
= Edit Summary =
I am starting to use edit summaries now as I have just discovered them. When i used to edit articles I just took no notice and didn t even notice it was there. However recently I have begun to use them. May I ask where you problems finding what I had done in an article or articles - ( 16:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)) :Replied --
=Thanks!=
Thanks for the note, it s always nice to have people notice the work you do, I really enjoy working on this project. It s interesting to see a large group of strangers work together and get something real done in a (fairly ;) civil manner. Glad to be a part of it! 21:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
= Shaman =
Hi snowflake, i ve reverted your edits to 21:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC) :oh, i also put a disambig link to the band on top of the shamanism page. -- 21:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC) ::Fixed and tidyed everything. Thanks for the politeness. -- 23:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC) of course! i figure this place works much better if people actually talk to each other . . . -- 09:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
= Britannica =
Heya, could you add the tag to articles that incorporate large parts of text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Thanks in advance. -- 02:34, 2005 May 8 (UTC) :I overlooked it once . Thank you nevertheless. -- 02:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC) ::I apologise if it came across as telling you off, it wasn t intended as such, merely a suggestion. I corrected the mistake, but it seemed prudent to also inform you. … Teach a man to fish … and all that. -- ) 02:45, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
= Mother-in-law joke =
Hi, Sn0flake! I disagreed with your speedy deletion nomination of this article, so I put it on the Votes for deletion page instead. The debate is at . 07:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC) :Replied --
= Stub pages centralisation =
Hi Snowflake - I like the look of the new draft for the stub project - I ve gone through it and tidied up one or two sentences here and there, and added a little bit. Mainly very minor stuff; the only real changes I made were in the unrevised section, plus the addition of one sentence in Creating and categorising stubs - If an article overlaps two potential categories, two different stub templates may be used, but using more than two is strongly discouraged. Have a look and see what you think. 04:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
= User_talk:Sam_Spade#Heavy_metal_template =
You certainly were offensive. Firstly you reverted nothing, have you had a look at the template history Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Template%3AHeavymetal&diff=13812989&oldid=10550666 our two versions]. Your change of colors was hardly a revert. It was a minor edit of my complete rewrite of an abysmal template. As far as my extremely minor (and amazingly easy to correct) mistake w 10:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
:In hindsite I think i got a bit overly pissed off in the above. The thing is, I spent a very long time working on that template, and did a very good job IMO. 15:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
::Quite an answer for a terse comment. If you can t work on a group project, I suggest you create your own Wiki. That template was most certainly not my work, if that wasn t clear enough. -- 19:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
:::I ve been here since 2003, and have made over 20,000 edits (#43 in total edits), so I m unconvinced that I can t work on a group project. Cheers, 12:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
::::Replied --
=My apology=
Stubs in my subpages - yes, sorry, I tend to forget that stub is now much more than just a message. (How does this page get away with having one) 05:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Later - noting your reply; you didn t sound too business-like; perfectly polite and valid request. And as for my mention of your page - right this instant I can still see below this editing-box the following:
Templates used on this page: :Template:Stub :Template:Band-stub -- 20:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
::Replied --
=Uwe Kils=
Hallo Mark - thank you - keep up with your fine work - best greetings. --Uwe 03:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
= =
This page and 16:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC) :After reading your message on SimonP s talk page, I understand your motives. Please make sure all the info from this page is presserved in the other article before redirecting again. 16:17, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ::In case you find something is out of place, feel free to edit the article. Cheers. -- 16:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
= Re: Opeth =
Hi. Regarding your recent edit to 22:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
:Hello there. Yes, the Statistic section is, as I see it, the worst idea on the Wikipedia. It merely repeats what is said on the lead section, only in a less informative way. Yesterday I went through all of the articles on List of Death Metal bands eliminating the Statistic section (and merging whatever useful information I found into the lead section) and fixing the articles in the best way I could, since they were mostly on a bad shape. Do you feel the Statistics section is useful Only one editor has told me that in the entirety of my time here, but I do respect all points of view. Cheers. --Sn0wflake 23:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC) ::I see your point. Good work, and thanks— 16:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
=Stubs=
Hi Snowflake - you wrote: With the help of your tireless work on the WP:WSS project, we have finally reached the elusive goal of getting rid of generic stubs. It has been a pleasure working with you for these past months. I would also like to formally apologise for anything I said to you in the past. That lies, most certainly, in the past, but I would like that to make that completely clear. Cheers!
I think we all got a bit heated at times - it was a very big task - and I too apologise for any harsh words there may have been on my part. The main part of the task is done now with 02:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
= Subject Matter Expert/Temp =
Hi. Could you please explain why you removed the stub template from this page I found your edit summary Please do not use the stub template on User pages.) a little cryptic. This is not a user page; it is a new article waiting for the copyvio at 03:20, 2005 May 31 (UTC) :Replied --
= Thanks for reminding =
Noticed that you d removed the stub template from with a friendly note. I forgot to remove the stub template when I moved it from article namespace to my user space. Thanks. -- 03:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) :You are welcome, no problem at all. -- 14:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Heyas =
Heyas, I ve seen you ve been randomly popping up a lot on my watchlist for some reason so I thought I d say hello. Hope your editing is going well. Let me know if you ever need any help! Have a nice day! - 04:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Replied, thank you very much. -- 14:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=Krill=
Hallo Sn0flake! can you please take a look at 20:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) :Hallo Mark! thank you for the fast response and help - the featuring is not so important for us, but the help in editing and language - keep up with your fine work for wikipedia -- 01:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
=Thank you everybody=
I would like to express my thanks to everybody helping in the nomination of 21:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) :You are welcome. -- 14:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
=A question=
Hi Sn0wflake - have you ever thought of becoming an admin I m willing to nominate you if you like... 23:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Done. Now all you ve got to do is go over to 00:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Thank you! =
Many thanks for your support for my RfA nomination, I appreciate it! 02:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) :You are welcome and congratulations on your great work on the Wikipedia. -- 02:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Thanks! =
Thanks for supporting me on my RfA. It s always nice to get some positive feedback. I hope I can put my new abilities to some good use. -- 17:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= My RFA =
Thank you for supporting my RFA. 00:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for letting me know. I ll fiddle with the page. 00:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= For some reason (article size) I can t add edits at adminship page, but... =
... no hard feelings at all, I think I understand your position. Just wanted to make sure I covered all the bases. Peace, 00:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Hey =
Sorry about that... have fixed Good luck with the RFA! - 03:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= =
We didn t mean to be confusing with our comments at our vote at 22:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Oh, and congratulations. You Administrator you. Our warmest regards, 01:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
= Wake Me Up Before You Go Go =
Hi - I noticed that you ve just deleted someone s article on the 28 June 2005 19:17 (UTC) :Replied --
= RfA Thanks =
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA nomination. I appreciate the vote of confidence you have provided me. -- July 1, 2005 14:25 (UTC)
= Hey =
That s really great, it s great to have people that dedicate time to writing large and informative articles on bands, especially heavy metal bands. --
= Wikibooks: Secret of Mana =
Hi,
I ve just started a 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC) :Great! 7 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
= Deletion =
Why did you delete Penny Brown It s a notable hoax that has been mentioned on Snopes. -- 16:09, 10 Jul 2005 (CDT) :Replied --
= =
*RE:Mariah carey article I appreciate the fact that you did not attack me the way some users did (Im not calling any names). Anyway, the only thing I did was remove the reference tag and the references because I was under the impression that we had all come to the consensus that it was not needed. For my mistake, I really apologise. That was all I did. The word impeccable at her vocal profile was POV and I take that back but I still dont know how expansive can be described as POV as many are arguing. Also, someone added something about her singing up to C8 and hitting an E2 in 21:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC) :I hope to have been of help. --
= Thanks! =
I appreciate your note on my talk page. I m sure you ll agree that sometimes it can get hot in here, but believe me, I try to keep my cool whenever possible. It s just hard to do this when somebody says things like Why don t you fools stop getting your panties in a bunch over nothing and let the article be! (in reference to the 23:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC) :I hope to have been of help. --
=CSD=
Hi there! I am writing a short essay on the present CSD proposal and the reactions to it, because I think it shows some interesting thoughts that preside in the WikiCommunity, and such an essay may be an interesting article for the Signpost, or a useful read for anyone who wishes to propose anything in the future. Anyway I wanted to ask you about your comment, There is absolutely no sense in basing a policy on a guideline . Could you please explain a bit what you mean We have in the past created policy out of some other guidelines, e.g. the 3RR policy which used to be a guideline. Or did you mean that a policy page should not refer to a guideline page for its decisions I can certainly understand (and sometimes agree with) people opposing an idea because of improper procedure, but if that is the case I would like to write that into the essay so that better procedures will be used in the future. Thanks for your time! 13:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC) :Replied -- *Okay, thanks for explaining that. Of course a rule is only as strong as its weakest link. What would you suggest to be done about it E.g. mark the guideline as policy instead, or copy/paste it into the policy This is not necessarily about this particular case, but it is quite possible at some point in the future that someone will want to promote a guideline to policy status. Yours, 11:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC) ::Replied --
= Thanks! =
Thanks for the input regarding the stub tag at the 11:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC) :Replied --
= Articles on Bands =
While I can see hat most years in discographies may be redundantly wikied, it is not always the case. The biography part does not always list the years. In any case, I do not feel stronlgy at all about this (less work on my part in any case). On the other matter, the only band that I did change the lineup was Edguy where for some reason it listed their birthdays as well, which is something I haven t seen in any other band article and in any case belongs in the artist personal article rather than on the band page. I think the best way to go about this is to have an blank band page to serve as a baseline and guide for new members. -- 14:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC) :Replied --
= s RFA =
I am not quite sure I understand your comment (and since this is more personal clarification than anything, I thought your talk page would be the best place to ask.) Are you saying that we should not have admins who find such things offensive 21:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC) :I now understand exactly what you were saying but still stand by my vote and nomination. Also, it did seem that two of the five oppose votes (SPUI and yours per SPUI ) were on the basis of that general attitude, if not the edits them selves. Thank you for taking the time to clarify this for me! 21:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC) ::Hello Sn0wflake, you really didn t say anything bad at all. Thanks for being concerned about what you were writing and sharing your opinion with others, which is what I really appreciated about you. Thank you again for participating in my RfA. — ) 00:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
= =
I m sorry if I have misunderstood the proper use of ). I thought its mention had been accidentally removed during recent valdalism and repair of 22:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
See 22:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC) :Hi Mark - the purpose of the template is to simply state that the category was created by the stub sorting wikiproject, and any creation of new subcategories for it should be cleared with WP:WSS before being made. It s just an attempt to stop the proliferation of useless stub templates and categories that cause so much extra work for the project. (Oh, and thanks for your comment re AR-geo-stub. Tobias Conradi is being a royal pain, carrying his argument for the redirect onto several different talk pages) 01:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
= Edguy =
Many thanks for wikifying the article. -- 11:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
:thanks again for welcoming me, and I hope that I will soon get acquainted with the usual formats of the English Wikipedia. Normally I m writing in the German Wikipedia (I m from Austria), and there are some differences between the usual formats of both sites. -- 12:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
= Your deletion is overkill =
I created this stub at about 06:20 and you killed it 2 hours later. What were you doing And you even said and the only contributor was Toytoy . Well, do you expect other people to contribute this article in a matter of 2 hours
BlockView is a real thing. It was mentioned in the A9.com article. If everything goes well, it ll be a very useful service (while you re deleting this article, I was testing it). Can you restrain your urge to delete Can you do some fact-checking -- 17:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC) :Replied --
=Thanks for the help=
You are welcome :) -- 07:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
= Neopets Gameplay - Sect Stub =
I guess you were right in changing cvg back to sect, but now I am beginning to wonder if it is even a stub anymore. Should we move Gameplay to its own article to avoid further lengthening the Neopets article -- 08:02, July 24, 2005 (UTC) :Replied --
= RfC: Boothy443 =
I think he deserves an appearance there by now, and as the target of his edit summary attacks, I thought I d ask if you ll comment. 14:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC) :Thank you for bringing this up. --
=Fucking Amal=
The UK and Australia also used the Show Me Love title, as far as I know.
Also, most people in the UK, the USA, and Australia speak English. Most people in Sweden speak Swedish. Therefore, the English Wikipedia uses the English title. 15:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:I ll use RFC... : As far as I am aware, the Wikipedia has no rules, and is based solely on consensus. In this case, out of all the people who have expressed an opinion on the matter, only one has stated that Show Me Love is the ideal title.
:1. There are rules that are derived from consensus, and... :2. Two people, not one, expressed preference for Show Me Love
:Edit: Listed it in requested moves... 19:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Replied --|
|