AnnieKat
All right, may the flaming of *me* begin.
Huh? I didn't define it, I just added 'n' to "a apple". -phma
- Huh. You're kidding. Who put the definition in? Eh, thanks anyway... I am going to have to find a picture for chiaroscuro, it's too hard to describe.Annie
Hi Annie. The first sentences on your user talk page are quite unusual, and rather mysterious. Normally, newcomers can read something like "Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. We hope you'll like it" etc. etc. As no one has done that before, let me welcome you now. By the way, have you already found out that Plano, Texas has its own page? All the best, KF 01:12 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome... yeah, I knew about the page. It's kind of dry, though, isn't it? I suppose that's one more thing on my list of Stuff to Update. As for mysterious... eh, I'm just so often a figure of controversy, I figured people might as well have permission to flame. (I don't tolerate it directed at others, tho.) Annie
- Mmhhh... but you'd like to be flamed by someone, don't you ? ;-) FvdP
- Did I ever deny it? Be warned, tho... I am teh 1337 flamer. Annie
Annie:
My contributions have come under attack because of a series of misrepresentations and misunderstandings from various sources. Most of these contributions contain large sections of original writing that boundlessly improved each article.
If you go through them, you’d see that the contributions are commendable and fall within the Wikipedia guidelines. You’d see that each subject is now treated more even-handedly than before, and that each article conveys a far better understanding of the subject-matter.
I doubt that you would like utterly clueless people tearing part one of your contributions and making it into an incoherent, disorganized mess.
As a result, I only contribute content to articles pertaining to subjects about which I am well-versed. I expect the same from others.
- User 172, as far as I can tell, you didn't get the message.
- As for "utterly clueless people tearing part one of your contributions and making it into an incoherent, disorganized mess", someone just did. Someone by the username of "172" just came onto my Talk page and wrote a long, self-supporting schpeal.
- But you're right. I _don't_ like it.
- Once again, please blast yourself into outer space.
- Have a nice day, Annie
The only "blasting" we do here is on the Wikipedia mailing list (please join the English one: Wikien-l). Zoe seems intent on getting 172 blocked for bad behavior and I'm beginning to see her point. Welcome to Wikipedia - I really like your contributions. :-) --mav
Annie:
I was trying to reconcile tensions between us, trying to foster a sort of rapprochement. Yet you continue to respond with these childish ramblings.
In yet another perhaps naïve attempt to reason with you, I’d like to urge you to go to the 172 userpage and see for yourself my invaluable contributions. You among others mock me, which is not in the interests of Wikipedia in general. The hate speech dissuades me from making further contributions.
I wouldn’t slander you. After all, that would distract you from expounding upon those articles pertaining to Pokeman.
Might I point out that my articles on Pokemon have as much cultural significance to a significant sector of the population as your articles on history do to another?
As for acting childish... I AM a child. As you'd realize if you'd looked at my user page. I'm 17 years old, and thus legally a minor. Therefore, I'm entitled to act like a child for another 4 months, 10 days and... 5 hours.
LOL! -- Zoe
Some goes on after 18. Guess who ?
- Well, I never said I can't act like a child afterwards... but for now, I'm entitled. The Purring One
Hi Annie !
Hi Annie, a belated welcome from me! Please note that our Wikipedia:Naming conventions state regarding capitalization of titles:
- Convention: Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun, do not capitalize second and subsequent words.
This is to make linking easier, as links are case-sensitive. I'll move the couple of pages you created. --Eloquence 23:34 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
Annie, I see you have not yet been inducted into the inner circle by those who know the entire hideous story. Let me have the pleasure/burden of being the one who helps you to understand the enormity and scope of the matter under consideration. If you will notice, Jimmy Hoffa was born in 1913 and Linda Lovelace was born in 1949. That they were born so far apart would make the plain fact of what happened seem impossible, but we are dealing with advanced technology here so please suspend disbelief until you have heard all of what I have to say. Additionaly, the fact that they were different sexes has thrown many a competent investigator off the trail of the terribleness that is the truth. In fact, both Hoffa and Lovelace were spawned as demonstrations to small groups of Earthlings, by the aliens, of the variability that can be produced if the cloning procedures they were teaching were not followed with the utmost care. If you have not come to the logical conclusion implied in what I have just said, let me spell it out for you. Jimmy Hoffa and Linda Lovelace are two clones of a single individual (whose identity has not yet been discovered). They are genetically identical persons. That Linda Lovelace was eventually to become a strident activist can be understood as her shared genotype finally showing through, even in spite of such drastic differences in her experiences from those of Jimmy Hoffa. See nature versus nurture for background information. The demonstration was not simply a warning of what to avoid however. It was also meant to demonstrate the degree to which you could influence the phenotypical characteristics of the clones produced, even though they shared a single genotype. As was noted, the sex of the individuals were made to be different and the Hoffa subject was optimized for criminality while the Lovelace subject was optimized for... well lets just say that she was optimized. Furthermore, and more to the point of clearing up the confusion about who is leading the conspiracy, the genetic engineering that was used in combination with the cloning technology gave Hoffa and Lovelace a psychic link that rendered them, in combination with their shared genetic composition, basically one and the same person. I could go on with more details but I do not like how the man in the corner is looking at me as I sit here on this public terminal in a busy library. I suspect that he is with the NSA. In order for me to have time to erradicate all evidence of this transmission and make an exit in a manner which will be most likely to result in the loss of my possible tail, I must be off. I hope this has helped you and I wish you well. --Qaz
- I came back and reread this. It kind of spooked me :p Let me emphasize that this entry was completely facetious. --Qaz
We know, Qaz. We know. Annie
Annie, Eric didn't vandalize my page. He made changes to 172's User page which 172 took exception to, even though 172 does the same thing to other people's pages. -- Zoe
- sighs* Well, that wasn't terribly mature, but I can definitely empathize... Besides, it looks like TheCanterburyTales did worse, so why isn't 172 targeting him/her? Annie
Articles for deletion nomination of Weyr
edit
I have nominated Weyr, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weyr. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ThemFromSpace 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weyr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weyr (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blastoise (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.