User talk:Peasantwarrior/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

---

List of people who have died

No, it wasn't a test. Sorry if there's been any kind of misunderstanding, but I believe a semi-conclusive list of people who have died is a valuable resource for quicker browsing, and expedites looking up dead celebrities. I do a lot of research involving death and celebrity death and I'm sure I'm not alone (wikipedia has plenty of niche places), and I need quick access to a list such as this.InterDinghy (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've answered on the article talk page. Thank you. Peasantwarrior (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Pushpraj

Thanks for that, after a bit of a think your reasoning has convinced me. Lankiveil (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

SAI - Small Arms Industries Aps

Regarding SAI - Small Arms Industries ApS ... what is wrong ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapsai (talk • contribs) 13:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've answered you on your talk page.

However, the article seems to have been already deleted, meaning an administrator concluded it was advertising. Peasantwarrior (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ekoji I

Hello,

Sorry, i just read the article, and yes. He (according to the article) was born 300 years ago. I will remove the Speedy Delete tag, and replace it with an

tag.

Sydney Know It Alltalk 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Danya M Alhamrani

I have removed your tag from the article as directing an Emmy-award winning programme is a claim of notability. However, it appears to be a hoax, as Google is showing me nothing, so I have PRODed the article instead. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vanity (Re: Vanity? - Wikipedia stance on sd|Vanity.)

Oh yes definitely. I came across that article as-well, though I found that you got to it before me. I'm not too sure on wikipedia's policies against vanity, thats why i used the db|Vanity tag, as the article demonstrated explicit vanity. What do you think? Sydney Know It Alltalk 13:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

        Great, ill be watching! Sydney Know It Alltalk 13:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please. Tell. Me. (Katherine Hayes)

"This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing."

So creating a Wikipedia page for an actress is vandalism now is it? Please tell me what is wrong with my page.

Katherine Elizabeth Hayes is an Australian actress, sister to Home and Away star Christie Ayrna-Lynne Hayes, who played Kirsty Sutherland.

If you actually took the time to READ Katherine's page instead of just nazi-ing and deleting it because you've never heard of her, you would see.

This is her IMDB profile. http://imdb.com/name/nm1843356/ Not just anyone can get an IMDB profile. I'm sure you know that. Take a look at it, and you'll see she IS an actress.

Take the time to read what I spent a long time writing, and you'll see why she is notable.

Other actresses have Wikipedia pages.

Why should it be any different for her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kara42 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sure she is an actress. She's just not notable. I (along with some other people) have answered on Talk:Katherine_Hayes. Also, about IMDB profiles - please read Wikipedia:Notability_(people), note 5. IMDB is not considered credible. About vandalism, creating an article is not (usually) considered a vandalism, other things you did (like vandalizing its talk page by copy pasting large amounts of nonsense) is. Thanks. Peasantwarrior (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

K. Thanks for actually replying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kara42 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Stick Online

Do not delete the stick online post. I am having the stick online community add more information and helpfull guides. I am not promoting a product or service because the game is free and there are no ads. Please reconsider Dasporkman1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasporkman1 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Walter Wakeman

How can you call this a disruptive edit:

Walter Wakeman is a lovely young man of some 20 summers. He enjoys video games, long walks on the beach, skipping stones, and Tim and Helen, among other things. But to truly understand the importance of Walter Wakeman, we must start from the beginning.

It is not only informative, but very well written. I also feel that Walter is a very important person, despite your obvious disagreement. He was diagnosed with cancer two years ago, and his favorite site on all the internet is Wikipedia. I was just hoping to suprise him with his very own article, but you ruined it. I hope you're happy.

Good day, Happytummy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happytummy (talk • contribs) 07:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm very sorry for your friend - nobody should go through the pain and suffering he is going through. That said, I stand by my decision. Let me be perfectly honest with you: Many people have cancer and although I know that doesn't make your friend any less special and I symphatize with his (and your) pain, that doesn't make him notable. If you wanted to surprise him, there are a lot of nice (allowed) things you can do for him: make him a Youtube video, for example. I'm sure he'll be delighted and you'll show how much he means to you. About disruptive edits, you know what you wrote in your second "article". That's considered disruptive and inappropriate. Please, don't do it again. Now, I hope you and especially your friend have a happy life. May he get well soon, I wish him all the best. Thanks. Peasantwarrior (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Otaka's Scoop

If you remember my article entitled, Otaka's Scoop, then you will probably remember the article being deleted twice. It may have been you that said this, but whoever was responsible for its second deletion needs to read this. The last talk message you put on Otaka's Scoop said that the article was classified as an advertisement. I am not arguing the faact that it was indeed an advertisement, though in my defense, I must note the huge hole in this reason for deletion. If you delete every advertisement that comes along, then why do I still see Harry Potter, Blogger, Blender, and many other advertisement articles on Wikipedia? Allow me to put the small article that I have tried to put on twice on to Wikipedia, as it could introduce many to the wonderful world of reading, and give a glimpse into the writing style of a future author. Please respond on my talk page. (Artemis Potter (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC))

---