User talk:Fugu Alienking/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with Fugu Alienking. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - ... (up to 100) |
Very creative name mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrblowfeldt (talk • contribs) 05:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaker1 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry mate, but I think you've got the wrong persson.
- Why do you have such an axe to grind about Freer? Is there an unresolved matter between you and him? You're obviously an intelligent person and I can't find your posts anywhere else. Why go out of your way to villanize him? Truthmaker1 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Send me the pdfs.Would love to see them. (email address removed to stop spam, can be seen here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaker1 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Mikael Ljungman
Fugu_alienking: Here we go again...your biased agenda to smear (yet another) person will not be successful. I've removed the bankrupt notice as it is not accurate and removed the Gizmondo source you presented as it was not appropriate to Ljungman. I am renewing the patent application link. His name is on the patent and the link works properly. I will report you to the editors if you remove it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaker1 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mikael Ljungman. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Needlepinch (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Mikael Ljungman
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mikael Ljungman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
Gizmondo
Hi.
I have just done a help request for User:Johnalexwood.
He asked why his edits on Gizmondo 'didn't work', and I see you reverted them as 'reference is self hosted forgery'. I think I understand your reason, but would you mind explaining it on User_talk:Johnalexwood#Gizmondo? Thanks!
-- Chzz ► 08:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)Just wanted to let you know that this prompted me to investigate the contributions of User:Johnalexwood, and subsequent editing of several articles to remove spam links, and one AFD nom. In other words, most, if not all of the users contributions are spam, and I'm taking action. -- Chzz ► 18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help keeping the page in conformance with at least minimal WP standards. David in DC (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)