User talk:Samuel Blanning: Difference between revisions
AnonEMouse (talk | contribs) →"Public figure": Miscommunication abounds, probably my fault, one last try |
→"Public figure": reply |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
:::: Sorry, I think we're drifting, I'm sure that's my fault. What's the actual standard you are proposing in the RFC there? --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
:::: Sorry, I think we're drifting, I'm sure that's my fault. What's the actual standard you are proposing in the RFC there? --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 21:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::::Exactly what I said. If you haven't done anything to deserve public attention by action or omission then it's not our place to force it on you. Others might try but we don't have to follow them over that cliff. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 21:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:57, 23 May 2007
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Via stras
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rockstar915&oldid=129272274 It is uncivil to remove these comments from other user's talkpages. To remove them for your own talk page without replying is also uncivil. Via strass 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam, In reference to deletion of Ian Sandercoe on wikipedia. I have updated the information in a biographical context. I am not offended by your deletion however I ask that you read my latest submission and changes I have made. Thank you regardless. Anna
Please advise are you only refering to available online content or are you accessing international microfish style film from the worlds library resources, and if it is only online please feel free to delete Ian Sandercoe as I feel Wikipedia is without question no encyclopedia at all, just an entertaining guise for semi-educated individuals to express their control on available content.. oh you seem a bit like a google.. click..buy..click..buy.. oh that is perhaps some where down the track. Once your membership and desired readership is in place.. good luck.. Hey good idea I'll just start my own encyclopedia.
Hey Sam, As I live and work as support for an Australian It company.. I don't expect it, this is the first time I've bothered to correspond in relation to anything online, you do a fantastic job, I commend you on it.. and really it doesn't matter, if the facts are not available online.. then hey it's all good.. one last point... your requirements must 1st be met by the catholic churches claims that Jesus assended to heaven on a cloud and with that I can say Wikipedia is 100% accurate Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC) "Public figure"I'd like to agree with your statement at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QZ_Deletion_dispute#View_by_Samuel_Blanning, but I'm not sure I understand it. Are you saying that we should only have articles on people who got fame intentionally? If so, then, for example, we shouldn't have articles on, oh, Prince William, thousands of others. Are you saying something else? I like Newyorkbrad's and Tony Sidaway's arguments here that we shouldn't have an article on this guy because it's actively contributing to bullying of a minor - the publicity is the bullying. But that's more of an "ignore all rules"/"don't be evil" argument than anything else. It doesn't set much of a precedent, it doesn't apply to nearly anyone else; few people can say Prince William is being bullied by publicity. What you seem to be saying, as I read it, is not that. So what is it? Can you explain, please? I still treasure your bronzed statement, and want to give you as fair a chance as I can. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
|