User talk:SQGibbon/Archive 2

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 3, Archive 4

I'm doing some research with our state ABC office so that I have the proper information. Up until about two years ago it was illegal in the state of Kentucky to sell corn liquor that had not been aged i.e. moonshine. Moonshine is essentially the first step in making Bourbon. When I get it done I will run it by to see if it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacklarwa (talk • contribs) 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why the wiki link was removed? only wiki links i had added. also just one information i added. so whats the issue?Woracious (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC) http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=182&catName=MTk3Ng== link provided.Woracious (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments at Talk:It (1990 film), you might be interested in the request for comment that has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Differences between novel and film. As many voices as possible are encouraged to be heard to gain a solid community consensus. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I did not "vandalise" any page. Stop sending me this crap. I don't even know who that person is. I don't even use the site full of mistakes and false claims so why am I getting emails from you saying I vandalised a page I wasn't even on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liestef (talk • contribs) 8:49 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I did NOT write any of that. I don't even know who that person is.

And by "email" I meant the alert I got telling me somene had left a message. I don't give a damn if it constitues vandalism in your high and mighty book or not, because I DID NOT WRITE IT so don't patronise me, and don't send me any other messages.

Hello, SQGibbon. You have new messages at Talk:Celebrity Reflection.
Message added 22:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please try to look for before you erase: Brownstone: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brownstone See 2. To be an editor, and a wp editor, it means, too, to have certain level of english. If you have doubts about a word, search for instead of "erase". Thats a brownstone. And to describe the mission of a non-for-profit organization does not required special citations. It is a logic description. Let's talk before erasing. Thanks --Lolox76 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just posting the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.102.191 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry and thank you i am not a spammer i thought i was qualifying for the greater manchester external link - i have jobs and accommodation posts which i thought would benefit the wider community of greater manchester in which these are rss feeds which benefit the user.

again sorry

manchester magazine USER:Manchester magazine

Thank you for cleaning up those edits. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not hard to understand why you needed to delete that - either the chicken or the egg - it is probably a copyvio - (unless they are all wikipedia mirrors) see

• http://www.lead411.com/Michael_Zwierzanski_5928158.html
• http://asiatour.com/arabicarticles/studying-arabic.htm

SatuSuro 14:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ease with which such crap can creep in unchecked on some of the more abtuse items is disturbing at times, sometimes the backchecking diffs and the trail of the fraudsters is beyond bots or brains - it is up to time, I dont have much at the moment compared to previous years SatuSuro 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Unotretre making continued legal threats via email. Regards, - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer ^Talk 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please allow that edit that edit that I pauldrice made to the Editing:Editing page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldrice (talk • contribs) 06:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no? SQGibbon (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i understand thank you --ManofSteam (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my In Popular Culture section in Popular Culture? The comic is very significant! It voices Randall Monroe's opinion on the subject. It's not like I just said "xkcd covered this." I have read the Wikipedia: xkcd in popular culture article.

This edit might have to do with the difference between new and old style dates for the russian empire. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Buttrock, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Different enough to need a new AfD, especially as four years have gone by. I'm not sure it's well enough established to meet WP:NEO, though - all the refs are to one site, allbuttrock.com. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeycum[1] user name also is offensive. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I seconded your post.[2] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, in fact, have no source explicitly stating that Wallace did not influence Stephenson. I also do not have any source stating that he did not influence Jesus of Nazareth or the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001. However on page 148 of his (Wallace's) self-described "masterpiece", Infinite Jest, he describes his attitude towards technology as a form of "Ludditism" [sic], meaning his influence on a author of Steampunk fiction would seem to defy common sense. Respectfully, Brandon A. Elam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.157.74.106 (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please no more reverting that page please so i don't get banned?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry about this, it wasn't intentional. I was trying to undo your edit, not roll it back, since I found a source for the 35 million number. I suppose I'll have to resort to the "my finger slipped" defense...in any case, my apologies. C628 (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Good Burger were simply fun, harmless April Fool's edits, not vandalism. It was still April 1 on my end of the Atlantic. There is a difference. I can't April Fool's Good Burger, yet anyone can April Fool's the main page all they want? My edits were not disruptive or vandalism. Vandalism is blaking a page or replacing the text with "(subject) sucks" or random nonsense. My intention was to revert it after April 1 had passed and we had all had our April Fool's fun. What's so wrong about that? PF4Eva (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent edit. I'm very skeptical about the inclusion of the Maritimes as soemwhere this music came from. This comes from one author. I've seen MANY books on the subject, and this seems to be the only place this is asserted. I'm in favor of editing to reflect this over whelming consensus. I've tried before, but have been worn down. Any thoughts? Steve Pastor (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not undoing the changes you made, there are advantages to allowing lists to include games that don't yet have articles, there is already a category. Sometimes, games have some quite interesting mechanics that aren't enough to be notable, it is a fairly innoccus place to add a game and I will add some guidelines to the talk page for inclusion.Tetron76 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you remove some of the names I added to the DJ list wiki page? That's pretty weird, especially because DJ's like Hardwell and Sunnery James are one of the biggest house DJ's on this planet. Take a look at Google. I really disagree with your action, even though I'm just trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.188.235 (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I completely understand, wasn't even aware they didn't have their own page, thanks for the infomation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.188.235 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Wanderlei Silva. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 00:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

SQGibbon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I know I shouldn't have gone with that last revert but I did stop at that point and attempted to engage the editor in discussion here which was my second attempt at discussion with the editor. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:MMA here about whether we should include flag icons in the results tables in MMA articles. The consensus was to follow Wikipedia guidelines (MOS:FLAGS) (thus my edit war with this editor). There are several editors who disagree with the outcome but participated very little if at all in the discussion and refuse to engage now in spite of many attempts by me and others to get them to engage. It is frustrating. We sought a outside help from WP:BOXING here but they did not join the discussion. Basically at wits end. The editors who want to include the flag icons are not engaging in discussion so it's not clear how to continue. So yes, I should not have reverted for that last time but I had moved on and was letting other people get involved if they wanted. SQGibbon (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

First offence, time served. Please be more careful bout 3RR going forward. Courcelles 03:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]