User talk:Sir James Paul
From Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia written in simple English for easy reading.
User:Sir James Paul/Archive 1 User:Sir James Paul/Archive 2
December 11, 2006-???
Contents |
[edit] Re:admin?
I'm pretty sure that you could make as an admin, but unfortunately, only time will tell. --ยง Alastor Moody (T + C) 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia is not censored
Please see WP:NOT because you had removed the list of swear words and WP is not censored. The edit has been reverted. --Shaericell 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Baseball
The problem is that the version of the article you started working from was the very oldest version when it was first created two years ago. A lot of improvements have been made on the article since then, and you undid a lot of editors' work - two years' worth. If you want to simplify an article, please start with the most recent available version. Thanks. Blockinblox - talk 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: User:Mooceleimh
Maybe I was a bit harsh, but a majority of the user's edits were vandalism. If you want to, you can contest his block by asking User:PullToOpen (the blocking administrator). --Az1568 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to answer your question here that was on Eptalon's talk page, because it should have been directed to me. Mooceleimh was a vandal, pure and simple. There is no reason why a vandal should be allowed to edit. He/she blanked Az1568's user page five times, and it is clear that this user wanted to do harm. PullToOpen Talk 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, he/she only had two warnings, that is true. However, it was PullToOpen who locked him. So if you want that time revised, please talk to PullToOpen (or BlockInblox, who blocked someone else, for very similar offences). My personal opinion is, that he/she would have continued. -- Eptalon 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Daniel Radcliffe
You warned IP User:75.58.52.61 about "only putting in encyclopedic content. But if you look at that IP's contributions, you'll see its only edit was a correct grammatical change [1]. If you were trying to respond to J Di's edit [2], that material was placed in the article by the original creator in October [3]. You really need to be more careful about issuing warnings. --ZimZalaBim 23:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
