User talk:24.125.55.90

Talk pages...
...are for constructive comments about improving the articles. Comment pages are for your opinions. Neither this nor this are appropriate uses of the talk pages. C628 (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

passive voice... -  Amgine | t 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  24.125.55.90 (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment RE: copyvio
Can I ask why you put such an inflammatory comment on the article I labelled a copyvio?

Simply lifting a 20-odd word phrase from the initial version of it gets a perfect match via a google search with a Times of India article. That is a copyright violation. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 21:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Name the 20-odd words that you are refering to. If they were quotes contained within the article, then note that those quotes were sourced. If you would like those quotes to be directly attributed to AFP, so be it. Otherwise, I don't understand what the problem could be other than you standing in the way of the Wikinews Mission Statement. 24.125.55.90 (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 23:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is your last/only warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikinews. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. — Mike moral  ♪♫  23:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian McNeil vandalized the page before me by wiping out its entire content, and he was also probably responsible for wiping its history clean too, so he could cover his tracks. He changed what was simply an article flag warning of copyvio problems, into a some kind flat out copyvio banishment of the entire article, while I was in the middle of working ont it! Brianmc's actions removed all access to the article. This, and all the while I was working on it, it's no wonder I got pissed off!! How collabrative of him was that?


 * I've read through the discussion being held on the watercooler proposals page. All I know is that 2-hours of my time went wasted, and I knew that was happening the second that Brianmc intervened, all high on his bully pulpit. He knows who I am, and he should know my ability to bring an article up to standards. An effort on my part to understand specifically what problem he believed existed with the article went unanswered. 24.125.55.90 (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There you go. Article restored and 3 revisions restored according to site policy using magical admin powers. — Mike moral  ♪♫  00:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed, and thank you very kindly Mikemoral, that action goes a long way toward... well, I can't even find the words. I'll take another look at the article tonight and probably do little with it, for now. But I'll be back. Again, thanks. 24.125.55.90 (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked



 * "Blocked for trolling!" LMAO!! You people have no idea how serious I am! 24.125.55.90 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Shorts: new format I'm working on...
Looks like fun, eh? User:Amgine/New short, then add to the current Wikinews Shorts:Date... -  Amgine | t 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You just don't give up, do you? For someone who supposedly hates this place, you really are obsessed with us. I know I'm wonderful, but try and restrain yourself. Or shall I be forced to deal out another block? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)