ParisianBlade
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. ParisianBlade has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Conservapedia | Your addition regarding Senator Obama
Perhaps I am confused, but what was the point in adding this? Were you trying to show evidence Conservapedia claims Obama may be a Muslim? If so, you can find that info on the Obama article itself at Conservapedia. Either way, I doubt the citation you provided is reliable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Thanks. meinsla talk 11:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
RfD nomination of User:ParisianBlade/ED
I have nominated User:ParisianBlade/ED (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Reliable source said 'by their own admission'
I think you're confused. Proof is not needed. A reliable source said "by their own admission". Please go to the talk page and discuss. 7876 ann arbor street (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's a wiki. See Irish Dance history. Please don't edit my user page. 7876 ann arbor street (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, FYI, my interpretation of "us" in the "But the biggest lesson she’s taken away as a young conservative is: 'There are people who want to destroy us'" quote was conservatives, not conservapedia. I think it is an insightful quote about the aspirations of some on the left to destroy the right. 7876 ann arbor street (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. It treated it unthinkingly like a username, but you're right, it could have been a personal name. 7876 ann arbor street (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, FYI, my interpretation of "us" in the "But the biggest lesson she’s taken away as a young conservative is: 'There are people who want to destroy us'" quote was conservatives, not conservapedia. I think it is an insightful quote about the aspirations of some on the left to destroy the right. 7876 ann arbor street (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not naive
Reverting the RW entry back to what it should be is not vandalism and you know this. If you have a personal issue with the site itself, so be it. But do not threaten that I am vandalizing. A revert is not vandalization, not in this case, where the revert is to an entry that is specific to the topic. Please do not carry over any of that CP/RW junk into Wikipedia. Anyway, as if I have to justify myself, have you looked at RW lately? It is not dependent solely on CP. It has commentary on all different things now. Again I just want to reiterate, do not make veiled threats and insinuate that I am vandalizing. Thank you in advance. Jersey John (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Sceptre
Whatever your opinion of Sceptre and his block/unblock, try not to goad him into responding in a manner unlikely to be helpful to anyone. Your comment on his talkpage isn't productive in the least. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've had personal conflicts with Sceptre before so I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for him, but I agree that my comment was hasty. I'll keep anything else I have to say about him confined to the thread. Thanks.--ParisianBlade (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Conservepedia
140px
I just thought you would like that. ResMar 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron
|
Hello, ParisianBlade. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~ |
What! Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea very democratic, have election just last year. Have many new election techniques for make benefit Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea, such as volunteer death camp for vote against Glorious Democratic Front for Reunification of Fatherland candidate. Is much free, more than filthy pig-dog capitalist country of vile West that seek to destroy Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea, last bastion of hope and freedom of working class in all world. Octane [improve me?] 22.02.10 0919 (UTC)
Non Free Files in your User Space
Hey there ParisianBlade, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User talk:ParisianBlade. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
- See a log of files removed today here.
- Shut off the bot here.
- Report errors here.
Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:ParisianBlade/Conservapedia
User:ParisianBlade/Conservapedia, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ParisianBlade/Conservapedia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ParisianBlade/Conservapedia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Scientizzle 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Courageous (film)
Hello. In case your missed it, I undid you removal of the content in Courageous (film), and would like to explain why. First of all, the discussion was closed on January 13, 2010, so it is not as if recreating the article is a spur-of-the-moment action. Secondly, the recent removal of content was solely by a sock-puppet of the banned User:SuaveArt; he had caused much disruption to similar articles in the past. Therefore, there has not been any objection to recreation. Finally, and most importantly, deletion is review is, as it describes itself, challenging the decision to delete an article, or challenge the closing admin's decision. I did neither. If you'll review the deletion discussion, every single !vote to delete/redirect the article was because the film had not begun filming. (Except SuaveArt; please read all the comments.) Five months later, I recreated the article after the script was completed, the cast was confirmed, and filming is half-way complete. This is more than enough to satisfy WP:NF. If you feel the article is not notable, and can back it up with policy, then I will be more than happy to address such issues. Otherwise, the article is fine as-is. Thanks for reading. God bless, American Eagle (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree. The reason the article was originally removed was because filming had not started yet, so it didn't fulfill all the requirements for articles about movies. That situation has now changed as primary production (i.e. filming) has begun on the film. There was nothing wrong with AE's recreation of the article. Seregain (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Common sense and desicion making listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Common sense and desicion making. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Common sense and desicion making redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)