User talk:Imroy/Archive 5

AfD nomination of Moties

An editor has nominated Moties, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moties and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Camera

Thanks for sorting out the mess that I accidentally started back in December. It's weird how the problem got buried with nobody noticing. Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Craig Reucassel

Eeek, thanks for reverting my edits to Craig Reucassel... My friend and I were looking around on Wikipedia, and I was still logged into my account... I think she was mucking around :\ But yeah, thanks so much for reverting that. :) Tilly C (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2008 (AEST)

make GLEW not a link (because it is only a redirect page)

I suggest you change from~
* Moved [[GLEW]] to [[OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library]] and made [[glew]] a disambig page with the non-OpenGL information.
to
* Moved '''GLEW''' to [[OpenGL Extension Wrangler Library]] and made [[glew]] a disambig page with the non-OpenGL information.
because of [1]. QQ (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Deviantart

Please do not revert edits simply because you didn't review my changes and edit summary. --125.60.248.139 (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Imroy, "Two years later" is unneccessary. And the symbols used are no longer used. It is irrelevant. Your reverts are unfounded. Your threat to block me is uncivil. --125.60.248.139 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And you edit summmary in reverting my edit "rv poorly explained removal of content by troll" is a personal attack. --125.60.248.139 (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Symbols before usernames are most definitely used on deviantART, so that section stays. Your recent edits have been very belligerent and, IMNSHO, quite troll-like. Calling you a troll is not a personal attack - all I know about you is the edits you have performed. And they all look like someone trying to cause trouble. That's a troll to me. --Imroy (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, enough of all this silliness. I see my mistake in thinking that all the symbols were no longer in use. The article said some symbols are no longer in use and I misread it that all symbols were no long in use. You didn't have to be so rude about it. -- 125.60.248.139

Calling me a troll is a personal attack and uncivil. You don't even know who I am! Not that it matters, but it is very rude to call people trolls just because there is a disagreement. -- 125.60.248.139

By the way, you removed content provided by another user.[2] You provided no explanation and did not discuss that content AT ALL! Goodbye!

Ah, thank you for that explanation. Everything would have been much simpler if you had properly explained your actions from the start, instead of making ambiguous references to my "lack of investigation into the matters". I'm sorry for calling you a troll, but you certainly looked like someone trying to cause trouble. Even now, your tone appears very confrontational. I suggest in the future you try to slow down and make your intentions clear. --Imroy (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am a very confrontational person especially when I feel people are not being fair. I am tired of reading bullcrap in Wikipedia articles and also seeing all the recent change patrollers acting like Wikipedia police on matters they have no clue about. I'm sorry for categorizing you in with them but it just seemed that way with the cookie-cutter messages. In the past I have just been harrassed with Wikipedia "cookie-cutter" messages whenever I came to the site. And I was several times instantly blocked by jerks who were making mistakes much worse mistakes than an accidental removal of content. Thank you for your patience in allowing this to come to an understanding. -- 125.60.248.139

Thanks for reverting the linkspam!

Thanks for your work reverting 168.215.198.8's spamming. Was going to do it myself, then saw you had! BTW, that IP address is owned by Pearson Technology (see here,) who owns InformIT.

Cheers, WalterGR (talk | contribs) 19:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

About my link

I'm sorry you looked at it as a link collection but I strongly disagree. I added just one link very valid to the article: a link to a tutorial. It's no different then other tutorials there and it brings something new. Please note it's neither spam nor advertising to a commercial site. I know the links are no followed and that is not the point. The community is the only one to gain here. You misunderstood my actions. Please go and review the tutorials. If you beleave they are any less valuable then the ones allready there I will not insist on this. 85.204.189.171 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)