Contents 1 User talk:Mr Slaves Colon 2 John P. Allen 3 Why. . . 4 March 2009 5 April 2009

[edit] User talk:Mr Slaves Colon

He's allowed to remove warnings, just so you know. The warning still counts, though. The reasoning has always been if they remove it, that means they've read it. Just thought you should know, take care. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know that! Thanks for sharing. bobbo (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] John P. Allen

You reverted what you considered to be vandalism a short while ago. Thankyou for, at least, paying attention to the article.

I believe that the publications list might be restored as long as it is A] abbreviated, and B] correctly formatted. If you would use the Carl Sagan article as a guide, you might notice than NONE of Sagan's hundreds of journal articles have been cited.

About 10 days ago I (helpfully, I like to think) gave examples of how wikipedia editors such as yourself should be formatting book and journal citations. I hoped that would be a heavy enough hint to the principal editor of the article. Apparently not.

I'm not an editor of this article in any but a very superficial sense, so I'm not going to engage in any edit-warring. I do ask you to delete that word "thinker" in the lead. We're all, thinkers, I think. Also may I ask what that null footnote ref is doing at the head of the article? Some other vandalism, perhaps? Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, another week has passed and nothing has been done about that ridiculous vanity list. I propose to delete it again next Monday if it hasn't been shortened and correctly formatted by then. --El Ingles (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Why. . .

did you do this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought it was vandalism. I thought it was someone saying that we (Wikipedia contributors) were all wasting our time etc, but after reading fully it I know it is not. Sorry for any inconvenience I caused. bobbo (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] March 2009

A tag has been placed on FUZE Meeting, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of FUZE Meeting and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Ericdn (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] April 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Sooty Mangabey. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (diff) _scootey^talk 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)