User talk:Kentkent

Please do not remove AfD tags if you wish to discus it go here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barry_Ley --Nate 12:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are also in danger of breaking the three revert rule just a friendly warning --Nate 14:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of it yourself Nate. Why not find something else to do besides vandelising these articles? You can´t feel good about damaging other peoples hard work. Maybe if you put as much energy into something else, you might get a little more out of life. Just advice, you obviiously do not have to take it.

Actually not, as you removing tag for an on going AfD you are the one vandalising & it is a revert of simple vandalism which is excluded. Either way it's reported now. --Nate 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really NATE. You just won´t stop, will you? Removing Tags? Ongoing ADFs? Cut to the chase. It is almost as if you are jelous that you did not think of this subject matter first. Perhaps if you rewrote the article and told everybody it was yours you would be happy. I feel sorry for the author, unable to defend himself from your vendetta but such is life. Maybe, if he can get onto another computer, he can rally his position. I, for one, am routing for him.

On another note, I wander how much other good content has been lost from this institution just because you "didn´t like it" or because you decided against its inclusion and demnded more and more citations, ad infinitum, untill an author with less time on his hands than you simply gave up. It smacks of bullying. Like I said before. I am sure that there is some good in you. With a little honest self examination, I am sure you could actually change track, even now and do some good in this project. Come on NATE. I am routing for you too!

Personal advertisements are not "good content" and Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a yellow pages or myspace. Biographicals and book entries will of course come under scrutiny to ensure that wikipedia is not being abused to make it an ad system or a self-glorification system. If the entries crumble under this scrutiny, that suggests something about the entries, not the investigating editors. FlowWTG 15:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

If articles have suitable references, like the two in question, they should be allowed to stand. So can we have no further vandelism please. I think DrParkes has been through enough attacks on his work. I agree with Flowwiththego. If articles do not stand up to scrutiny then there is something wrong with them and not the editors. CONVERSELY, if they DO stand up to scrutiny (in this case the personal attacks go well beyond scrutiny, as DrParkes has provided far more proof than any other article I have come across) then it does suggest that there IS something wrong with the editors and not the articles. Come on guys, a little objectivity please. This project has a truly noble aim. Lets not spoil that for the sake of a few individuals' personal agendas.

And while we are at it, Perhaps it would be a little fairer to unblock DrParkes and give him a chance to speak for himself. How can he defend his work if whoever has banned him will not let him provide the citations they keep asking for. Poor guy. He is only trying to contribute. How was he to know he would get on the wrong side of the Judo gang_

Andrew Mears entry

Since you seem to know these people in question, could you, in the interests of making the Andrew Mears article more professional-sounding and worth keeping, provide the belt division (if gi, if no-gi experience division) and weight class in which he won a silver medal? FlowWTG 15:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed maintenance notices from Barry Ley, even though required changes haven't been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Real96 07:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Along with the rest of User:DrParkes' imaginary friends. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]