Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

My Talk Archives

Archive 1

Hello, there. I'm not on as much as I used to be, as I'm busy in real life; so if you leave a message below, please be patient for my response.

I've just seen the responses on the wikiquette discussion. Listen, I'm sorry but I'm not participating in this. I'm done. I'm logging off wikipedia and I don't intend to return. I can't get my head round how petty this all is. I've got better things to do with my time and I'm sure you feel the same. They can do what they like with the GUST article, to be perfectly honest I think they care more about it than we do. Having a wikipedia article isn't going to make any difference to GUST, which is really all I'm bothered about. Can you even begin to understand these people? Why someone with no connection to a subject, who has never participated in or been involved in any way with anything to do with television, who has probably never visited Glasgow or Scotland, who has no idea about and no interest in the topic at hand, would want to delete this information and care about it so much... it's just beyond me. Wikipedia has this incredible opportunity to be the most comprehensive source of information the planet has ever known, and it's stunted by people like Sherzo. Well to hell with it, let the baby have it's bottle. This is totally beneath me, and it's beneath you as well. Don't waste your time with it, I say. The most annoying thing about this is that I actually care! It's taking up my time and I'm being reduced to their level! Well, frankly they've won. But this isn't a game I want to win at. Thanks for your help, I'm signing out. JMalky (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and happy editing 87.81.63.26 (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck You all.Sherrzo (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're aware but there has been are recent edit war on this page by members of Nasta, I'm not on alot at the moment could you keep an eye on it? also if i nominated the article for deletion, would the ARS then come and revamp up to standard? or would that just be disengenious? Sherzo (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherrzo. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your efforts. Sherzo (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TorstenGuise. Thanks for your note - I was leaving my own note on the talk at the time. Please understand that I'm not trying to revert your addition blindly, it's just that I'd like to see the information better incorporated into the article if it is to be included. As I stated over at the article talkpage, I'd really like for Ceoil to comment, as he can probably make a short but fairly informative paragraph on various musical interpretations. I know this is not the only band inspired by the poems, and that not all modern interpretations are necessarily trivia. I didn't take it out initially because I thought it might well merit inclusion and wanted a bit more feedback from others. I can certainly relate to non-wiki time commitments, by the way, especially if you are at work on your thesis (which sounds quite interesting, from the small bit you mentioned). I apologise if you feel I was abrupt with you; that wasn't my intent. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pretty embarrassing admission to make, which is that I do in fact know the version you are talking about, and for some reason had thought it was by a different band. It was part of why I got on board with the article in the first place. I was searching for a link to send you and discovered the truth. Turning red, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:USSU logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]