Jump to content

User talk:MarkGallagher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CoolKatt number 99999 (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 26 July 2006 (→[[WWCP-TV]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

  1. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive1 — July–September 2005
  2. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive2 — October–December 2005
  3. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive3 — January 2006
  4. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive4 — February 2006
  5. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive5 — March 2006
  6. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive6 — April 2006
  7. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive7 — May 2006
  8. User_talk:MarkGallagher/Archive8 — June 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Bully

You deleted Spam Bully (not encyclopedic, probably copyvio) as I was trying to clean it up. I am not arguing with your reasons for deleting it; both your points are correct. I started a new article with the same name, which is still a stub, and listed it for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spam Bully. I think that it now passes WP:CORP, but I would be grateful if you could have a look at the article and the AfD. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turnbull & Asser deletion

Didn't you see my comment on the talk page before you deleted this page. I followed the proper procedure with the hangon tag and had just finished the basic rewrite of the article when it told me it had been deleted. Should I just begin the page again or what? Woldo 09:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and created it again. Please discuss first if you have a problem with it and plan to delete it. Thanks Woldo 09:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for closing the AfD on this. I nominated it to stop the speedy deletion confusion that was going on. Still don't understand what the issue there was. I have to admit the nomination was pretty political and a big waste of time. Hopefully the article can become decent now. MyNameIsNotBob 11:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turnbull & Asser you seem to be criticising me for putting a speedy G4 tag on a reposted article that you deleted. What do you suggest I should have done? Bear in mind that I don't have access to deleted versions to check that a repost is really that, so I tag them for an admin to look at. Kevin 11:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate for cut&paste moves.

Actually, if you'd like to help me out. I could use a nice template for cut and paste moves. I'm thinking about stealing a few lines off of WP:CUTPASTE, editing them up a bit, and turning that into either a template, or a personal template for editors who use cut&paste rather than the move function. If you'd be willing to help let me know. I'm going to try to write the template in the next day or two if I get time. Kevin_b_er 10:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"speedy", not "lightning"

G'day Reswobslc,

I see you've been doing a lot of good work helping us get rid of nonsense articles and so on. Well done! If I could just make a point ... there's enthusiasm, and then there's enthusiasm.

Among your list of excellent actions, you also tagged The Pavilion, Westville as a speedy candidate when it was only a couple of minutes old. I've deleted it because its author, who had expressed a desire to improve on the article before it was tagged, decided he'd rather revert you than do any improving, and so he can probably just as easily start from scratch at this point. However, as a general rule it's a good idea to be a bit more laid-back about articles that've just been created which the author obviously intends to improve. Killing it before they even start can be very discouraging to new editors. Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it empty (or nearly empty) in the first place? (As noted, it's gone, so I can't doublecheck). Where did I miss his expression that he was going to improve it? (no talk page, none was deleted either). If it were really empty, am I really setting him back by tagging it? If I were him, and I saw "this page is tagged because it was empty", would I really feel criticized, or would the encyclopedic non-value of a blank page be obvious, along with the conclusion that if I were to put an article there, it would no longer be empty? As you noted, I did tag a lot of pages (enthusiasm is one way of putting it, or it could simply be that I chose to select pages off the new pages log and that's why new pages were targeted). If I tagged it for some other reason than empty, would you remind me so I know what not to do? Reswobslc 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA and questions

Hey Mark, thank you for your message! :) I'm glad you gave me your reactions to my answers. To be honest, I'm still a little unsure about closing close (no pun intended) xfDs. I guess my emphasis on relisting was a result of my wanting to make sure that every decision I made was thoroughly discussed beforehand. Of course, I still want to ensure this, but it's clear that I need to devise a way of doing that without increasing the time that things take to go through processes such as xfD; I hope that comes with experience. Cheers, Tangotango 08:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unification Church clarification

Hello Mark, I just wanted to make a clarification on my edits on the Manhattan Center page. The goal of my contributions to this page is to ensure the factual accuracy of the details on the history of the building. Also, I'm aiming to keep the history section consistent with the history on Manhattan Center's official website. The entries on the official website are neutral, factual, and they should fit well within Wikipedia's standards. The website lists that the building was purchased by the Unification Church. It doesn't say that it was purchased by Sun Myung Moon's Unification church. This phrasing is redundant; similarly, you would not refer to the Church of Scientology as L. Ron Hubbard's Church of Scientology. If you were a Roman Catholic, you would not refer to your church as the Pope's Roman Catholic Church. The leaders (or some cases, originators) of the chuch are assumed. It's not that you wish to hide the information about the leader of the church, you only want to ensure the accuracy of the church's name when it is mentioned. For these reasons, all I ask is that the reference on Manhattan Center's Wikipedia page match the information on the website. Thanks. Manhattan Center 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just adding a note that this was directed at an edit made by "Exucmember"

Category:Socialist Wikipedians

Why is "Category:Socialist Wikipedians" flagged for non-creation? How is it any different than "Category:Liberal Wikipedians"? There are 22 wikipedians who purport to be Socialist Wikipedians! I don't understand. -- Dyslexic agnostic 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet listing

Is there any way to get yourself delisted as a puppetmaster? This page has been up for several weeks now; the accusations are completely baseless, except for Dzinkin (a friend of mine who I asked to contribute to a discussion where someone was dismissing facts because he didn't like me -- I wasn't aware at the time that this was frowned upon), but I have no way to prove it. The person who made the accusations has shown no signs of backing down, even though his only evidence is random new users agreeing with me. What can I do here? -TPIRFanSteve 00:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is pertinent, as well. -TPIRFanSteve 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muchas gracias. -TPIRFanSteve 12:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a word with Buckner? He's decided that you vandalized my Userpage and reverted it. -TPIRFanSteve 16:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company editor editing article

Would you be able to investigate the editing of the Turnbull & Asser web page by the ip user 80.168.52.51 which according to this site belongs to Turnbull & Asser. You will find a number of contributions to the article here. As you will notice these are severely POV and you can understand why I went and did a WHOIS search. Thanks for any assistance you can muster. MyNameIsNotBob 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fagatron

I deleted and wanted to protect this from recreation, but couldn't work out how to as there isn't a protect tab. What's the trick? Tyrenius 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inflammatory messages

Good day I am sorry i fail to see why it is wrong to bring the user's vandalism to peoples attention. That user has vandalized many articles. Perhaps i could say it in a nicer way, i dont know, but thats why the notice board is there in first place, to let other users know that someone is vandalizing, Don't you agree? --Spahbod 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater and Lesser Tunbs

Sorry to bother you again, but i dont understand why you protected this article: Greater and Lesser Tunbs. User:MARVEL is constantly changing persian gulf artciles to his POV, changing persia gulf to arabian gulf, moving arvandrud to arabic shat al arab, and in the greater tunbs article he has put in this: are Emirati islands occupied by Iranians in 1971. But the islands are iranian. I dont know if i gave you bad impression for some reason, but i am really not the bad guy here, i am just trying to not let these articles be vandalized. --Spahbod 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, i know that edit wars is not something wikipedia approves of. I believe that you looking at this from a neutral POV perhaps do not appreciate why i just reverted and called it vandalism. As i explained for Mr Aron Brennema here: [1], the edits this user on many articles is really vandalism, he does not show a different POV or add other disputed facts, he simply changes all persian names of persian gulf or the Greater and Lesser Tunbs islands or Shatt al-Arab to arabic names, claiming they belong to arabs, moving whole pages to arabic names and such. If this is not vandalism then what is. Thanks for your time. --Spahbod 14:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect the page so we can correct it! it is factually wrong and has been vandalised.Khosrow II 15:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting deleted articles

Thank you kindly! I thought I'd been forgotten about over that one...

Admin needs admin assistance

Thanks to having a computer
plugged into a Netgear router

I can access Wikimedia
and the whole of Wikipedia.

Now that I've been R-F-A'd
trolls and vandals are dismayed

when they find they aren't so clever
after they've been blocked forever.

I go in at quite a breeze
getting rid of CSDs:

I blast to sub-atomic particles
non-notable and nonsense articles.

But though I've spammed and though I've pleaded
I cannot find the know-how needed

to get deleted ones protected -
they keep on getting resurrected!

--Tyrenius 19:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email

Thanks! Computerjoe's talk 21:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:MARVEL

Hello, it seems to me User:MARVEL is User:True Paths sock puppet. User true paths account was made today, and all his contributaions involved the very same ones MARVEL was editing: [2]. Furthermore you will find the very same line on both users userpage: Im Concerned with history here:[3] and here: [4] --Spahbod 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for looking into this, i really appreciate it. :) --Spahbod 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater and Lesser Tunbs

I understand you had to protect the page to stop edit war but his was not just a difference of opinion this is the clear case of one side ignoring the facts. they keeps labeling the islands as “occupied”, that is extreme POV push. The island belongs to Iran according to all maps of the world and only UAE claim that they are occupied. It is a very politically motivated edit. We can of course mention that UAE claims these islands To be sure we represent both sides but they want to completely shut the other side and only represent the UAE government. Also the official and UN sanctioned name of the gulf is Persian Gulf and even the page in WP is titled Persian Gulf, naming dispute section mentions other alternatives, still they keeps reverting it without any explanation. I don’t know if it is one person or more but I think they should be given a warning. Thanks.Gol 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see this edit from MARVEL [5] - he is pushing an Arab nationalist POV by calling Persian Gulf as "Arabian Gulf" and claiming that the islands are "occupied" when they are historically part of Iranian mainland. He has not even provided sources for his "opposing" views. Hope that helps clarify things. Thank you. Khorshid 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Spear pages

Hi, I'm not creating empty pages, I'm creating new pages for the Burinng Spear album discography.

Burning Spear pages

Thanks for the heads up, I can see where you are coming from

Stephanie Adams

Hi, I saw you protected the article and removed the unsourced section. Thanks. What is the best thing to do in such a case? (if protection isn't there yet) In one hand the section should be removed per WP:BLP, but one also doesn't want to edit war. I only removed it once when I saw it, but wanted to remove it again after it was re added but thought the better of it. :) Garion96 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I did good. Always nice to know. :) Thanks for your reply and of course thanks for coming in with your two-handed broadsword. Garion96 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User boxes

{{User PurePwnage}} Template:User PurePwnage
You may enjoy this user box on your use page! Thanks for all your help to the wikipedia! This is a friendly thank you! :) --DragonWR12LB 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism warnings

Hi, at first I did think that the user's new pages were placeholders, but after so many were created it was almost like spam (I felt), so I took the opinion that it could be vandalism, so I left that warning on the user's page. Since then, he replied to me and I offered him some advice, and now it is clear that the edits weren't vandalism, but as I'm sure you understand, at the time when there were a lot of these articles appearing (like a vandal might in some form of attack), I just wanted to stop them. I will leave a message on Tioreted's user page apologising, now that it is apparent the articles were in good faith and just placeholders. (I feel that I observed WP:AGF, but perhaps vandalism was, in hindsight, to strong a word to use) All the best Martinp23 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avocat

You asked in your edit summary if there was a reason I didn't just make it into a redirect. I actually considered to do this, but chose not to for two reasons:

  • The speedy tag was already onthere, but removed it.
  • I didn't think it was a plausible typo.

But of course it doesn't hurt to have extra redirects so we might as well leave it this way. - Dammit 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mallgoth

Yeah, I realised I should be doing RfD not AfD - I'm doing that now. My reasons briefly are that Mall goth was very recently deleted under AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mall_goth), and all the redirects - including Mallgoth - were then speedy deleted as a result (e.g., see [6]). I don't know why someone has recreated the redirect so soon (just 2 days later). I've no huge objection to the redirect existing - but it seems a bit silly that the AfD consensus can be ignored simply by recreating the page as a redirect; the term still seems to be non-notable. I figured it should be brought up for discussion - if people think that the terms should redirect to Mansonite after all, then we can recreate the other variations as redirects. Mdwh 10:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of those things. Obviously I realise that AfD consensus can be ignored - there's nothing to stop someone recreating articles or redirects immediately after they are deleted. But that doesn't mean I think it's a good thing. And I disagree that this comes under the idea of recreating a different article with the same name - the possibility of redirecting mall goth/mallgoth to Mansonite was clearly considered in the AfD, and most people were against that. Yes, there's nothing to stop someone recreating the redirect anyway, but there's nothing to stop me raising the issue for the debate.
Above all, I'd rather have some consistency - if people decide a redirect is better after all, then so be it, but then we might as well have Mall goth redirecting there too. Mdwh 10:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

No problem, Mark, and thanks for expressing your concerns on my RfA. I hve and will contunie, whatever the outcome, to improve myself as much as I can. I'm really glad that you've tried to assist me when I was really getting my feet wet early in my Wikipedia "career." Yanksox 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt number 99999

Hello, I seem to be the latest person who has come on User:CoolKatt number 99999's bad side. He seems to be a problem user and something needs to be done about him. I just did a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR report on him. Is there anything that can be done? Buckner 1986 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he has still failed to learn. One of his first edits after the ban passed was to go slap a sockpuppet tag on someone with no evidence. [7]. It was again reverted by someone else.--Crossmr 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't listen to Crossmr either. He has had a past history of being uncivil as well. CoolKatt number 99999 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have to listen to me. He just has to look at your contributions and the diff I left. I'm not expressing opinion, I'm expressing fact. --Crossmr 21:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want no trouble. Just walk away, and all will be cool. CoolKatt number 99999 21:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a threat. Maybe you should take your own advice.--Crossmr 21:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WDCA on Rollosmokes' talk page

Mark, can you really blame Rollo for doing this? CoolKatt is crazy, and purposely harrassing and provoking Rollosmokes to get this kind of response out of him so CoolKatt can play the victim once more. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to be purposely uncivil. I will admit to wanting a reaction out of CK. I've been quiet for a while as I've waited to see how this episode would play itself out, and between CK's continued behavior and the slow-as-molasses arbitration process, I'm losing patience. I hope this is all wrapped up by the end of this week and we can say adios to CK once and for all. Rollosmokes 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

warning templates

G'day aeropagitica,

um, are you sure you don't need to cut back on use of the test-n series of templates? I appreciate it's possible to get a bit narky at Pressure_Thirteen (talk · contribs) for mass-adding reporter articles, but at what point did test-n enter into things? Gah, those templates are every damn place now, aren't they? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you mean that I should use the {{testarticle-n}} template or that I shouldn't mention each article that I have speedily deleted to that particular user? One warning per article would be excessive but I made one warning cover all of the articles. Perhaps it was the wrong warning? I may update my macros, as above.  (aeropagitica)  (talk) 

User:Odenatus

Can you please check this user, it seems user:MARVEL has gotten himself a new account, and editing same pages. Thanks --Spahbod 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft message

Phil sent it to me :) I love it. I hope you keep track of the star wars cruft as it slowly dies out and turns into stuff on par with Jabba the Hutt. I'm looking forward to resuming with that work once these Final Fantasy FAs are finished. By the way, have you joined "The Cruft Fighters"? — Deckiller 04:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick

The link is to the name of a fictional character that is used exactly once in the book concerned. If you feel its significant enough to include, feel free to revert it back. I've been trying to work with the user who added the link who has a long history of dubious and sometimes just plain incorrect edits. Best, Gwernol 14:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cahill

Roger Wilco - sorry 'bout that. All the best, Lion King 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word from me

I don't plan on reverting for a while on mainspace aritcles, but here are the reasons for reversion:

Listen, I also have this to say: the users CFIF, Rollosmokes, Buckner 1986, and Rekarb Bob have all given me a hard time. I would feel a lot safer editing if these four were permanently blocked. The latter two especially since they seem to be the same person. I am in no way being uncivil here, I am just suggesting a way to make things better. The former two have been WikiStalking me for quite some time, and I think you should do something about it.

And I hope that you promisee never to block me again -- again I am not being uncivil. CoolKatt number 99999 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break CoolKatt. "You'd feel a lot safer."
See what I told you Mark, about him playing the victim. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't listen to CFIF, he is the one playing the victim. CoolKatt number 99999 20:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a load of (Not gonna say it because of WP:CIVIL) I'm not using the "poor me" act to admins to try to get my way. I'm just showing them the facts. Gimme a freaking break. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you appeal to an admin, or talk to one, I can envision you with the big "puppy dog eyes" and your lower lip hanging out with a tear in your eye as a facade to try to get leniency. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being uncivil to me. You started this, I did not: [8]. CoolKatt number 99999 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's "starting it"? Warning you to do something which was against WP:TVS mandates and number two, you use against another member (Rollosmokes). Apparently, you are the pot calling the kettle black. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, you should have just left me alone. Let someone else handle it in a civil manner. CoolKatt number 99999 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So I should have lazily sat back and just "left you alone" while you went on an editing rampage. There you go again, with your victim words. "Leave me alone". "I'd feel much safer", etc. Stop the facade. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop being uncivil. You are getting nowhere. CoolKatt number 99999 21:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you're getting "somewhere" by continually provoking me and others? A place you will be in is the permanently blocked users list. Maybe not today, not tomorrow, or the next week, or even the next month, but one day, an admin will see through your facades of playing the victim and playing the "innocent child", and permaban you for your behavior. Mark. my. words. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, don't listen to CFIF. CoolKatt number 99999 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More puppets of User:MARVEL

I saw you were the blocking admin on this user, so letting you know there is now a User:Copy of MARVEL which redirects to his main userpage. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to notify you that MARVEL (talk · contribs) is edit waring under several different new user-names to evade 3RR.

1. Active Mind (talk · contribs) 2. Aladine (talk · contribs) 3. Odenatus (talk · contribs) 4. Sanatruq (talk · contribs)

Regards. --ManiF 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see Copy (2) of MARVEL (talk · contribs). --ManiF 01:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

A Barnstar!
The Original Barnstar
For being willing to listen; and though not always the most civil editor, most certainly one of the nicest :D Computerjoe's talk 21:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unjust!

you mister admin if you think i will beg you to remove the blocking you are wrong, you are a guy who only care about himself and never care for other or care for Wikipedia, you are misusing your authority, and supporting one POV, after all i wrote you just blocked me and let the page to vandalism, and now the page of the Tunbs article has been vandalized and thanks for you, a guy on your position must be at least neutral but you are not. God bless me. Copy of MARVEL 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind the arguments

Just look at the first message I left you. CoolKatt number 99999 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MARVEL again

Please take a look at this: [9]. Thank you --Spahbod ☼ 01:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quixtar?

Why were my changes reverted? The current article has incorrect fatual information, for example on the FTC reasoning. I simply rewrote it correctly. Go and read FTC v Amway and numerous other legal cases on MLM. To be an illegal pyramid you MUST have payments for recruiting. The other issues are related to being an illegal marketing scheme, another issue altogether. Furthermore the 70% rule has never had anything to do with retail customers. That's completely false and a misunderstanding that is often repeated. Wikipedia should be about facts, not misunderstood opinion --213.112.94.65 01:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CoolKatt number 99999

User:CoolKatt number 99999 is up to his old tricks again. And apparently I am not the only one who is has noticed him. Is there anything that can be done about this problem user? Buckner 1986 03:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a problem user. You are the problem Buckner 1986. CoolKatt number 99999 04:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buckner 1986 will not stop

Appearently, his block did nothing. He continues to label my edits as "vandalism" -- again see my reasons for reverting below:

I tried reasoning with him, but now I have filed an RfI against him: Wikipedia:Requests for investigation#New requests. CoolKatt number 99999 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWCP-TV

Take a look at why I am reverting here: [10] This was a mess before I stepped in. [11] I made the article much neater and 2 users here are accusing me of vandalism. Could you please change it back to my version, the version of better quality? CoolKatt number 99999 02:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: Please block Rekarb Bob, Kramden4700, and all his other sockpuppets, Rekarb Bob especially since he accused me of vandalizing WWCP-TV as well. CoolKatt number 99999 02:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I must revert now because it is the only way this will ever be cleaned up. CoolKatt number 99999 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of poor rationales at AFD ...

Your help would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chains of Honor. Uncle G 16:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MARVEL is back

Hi, MARVEL's back again under the name Still Standing (talk · contribs), he's also using profanities in his edit summaries. --ManiF 16:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MarkGallagher&oldid=66032530"