Misplaced Pages

David Blaine Article

yeah you reversed my edits on the david blaine page. you realise you basically have a press release on here for david blaine. i was just removing self-promotional "fluff" from the page. Nick 12 September 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.164.195.56 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, I thought it was vandalism, as I didn't look very closely. I have reverted my edit. --Rory096 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

cheers matey! Nick 12 September 2006

Michael Milenski

While the article Michael Milenski does appear to be written by its subject, it clearly asserts the importance of the subject and is thus not subject to speedy deletion under CSD A7. See WP:SPEEDY for the criteria for speedy deletion. Geoffrey Spear 14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, it's about a director of a seemingly non notable opera (we don't have an article on it, under 1000 ghits) that is full of weasel words that seem to imply notability, but don't directly assert it. It's borderline. --Rory096 14:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Yes, I agree, that was a typo as I was trying to move it to gas operation but did not know about the discussion on the talk page. Sorry about that. Paliku 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

The so called vandalism you have posted on my disscusion page is bogus. It happened during an editing mistake (you actually reverted it while i was trying to correct it). Now that you know, will you please remove your bogus warning? 150.208.140.13 16:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've struck it. --Rory096 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man150.208.140.13 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhh

Do I ever get an apology from you? Juppiter 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

?

Not sure what that's all about, but everything posted can be verified by 1, researching the Sapulpa Daily Herald and 2, interviewing the parties involved! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.149.42.237 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if half the things can only be verified by interviewing the parties, then it's OR and violates WP:V. --Rory096 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, Rory, for voting on my RFA, which succeeded 95 to 1. I remember the night I was nominated, and how you had a bit much to drink that night. Only made sense that your support vote had "will expand when sober." Anyways, now that I'm an admin, I hope I can live up to the standards of being an admin. Thank you for the support! —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:RfA

Regarding your request on my talk page, perhaps you could first change the RfA template, and then I could fix my bot. The bot should not mind the updated headings, it will only result in the mathbot's line going to the bottom. Doing things in this order will make it easier to update the code of the bot. You can reply here if you have comments, I will keep your talk page on my watchlist. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 18th.

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 05:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)