User talk:DaffyDuckDied

"fixing grammar"

Hey, thanks for your edits. In general full stops should only go at the end of full sentences. Ironholds (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the Shortland Street edits as well, but those weren't what is considered "irrelevant information". It requires cleanup, yes, but a broad overview of plot development is helpful in most shows. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop cropping

Please stop removing what you see as "irrelevant material"; it isn't, and if you feel this way it would be best to first establish consensus. In addition, your edits to Aly & AJ: If there is no sourcing, look for some. Album releases should be easily sourceable through google. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Actually

No, and considering you spelt "actually" wrong, neither are you. It is, however, the standard way to use punctuation. Ironholds (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Looking" correct is nothing to do with it; the convention is to not end them with full stops, since they don't make up full sentences. Ironholds (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking correct is irrelevant, you've got to conform to English grammatical standards and consensus. If you can provide evidence that your edits are backed up by policy or consensus, then that will be fine. — neuro^(talk) 18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trespass

People are perfectly entitled to leave you messages on this page; it isn't trespassing. See WP:OWN. Ironholds (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as at User talk:Neurolysis. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. You do not own your talk page, I am not trespassing by posting messages. — neuro^(talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire article

Hey there! The second word in a heading isn't normally capitalised. In addition, your replacement of "acres" with "hectres"; A hectare is around 2.4 acres, so that was incorrect. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE

Hi, would you care to back up your claim of me 'biting the newcomers'? — neuro^(talk) 18:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Nebraska/ biting

Hey, thanks for your "vote". AfD works a lot like RfA; it is the quality of your comment that counts. "it is a fantastic book" doesn't do much; sheer awesomeness isn't accepted as a reason for something being notable. Please include something from policy; see WP:N as to what traditionally makes something notable enough for inclusion.

As for the biting; please see WP:BITE as to what constitutes bitey behavior. In my dealings with you I have been continuously polite, and I've tried to make my comments as helpful as possible; if I'd said "this edit is shit" you'd have a point, but "this edit is contrary to policy, here's what you should do" is not bitey. Participation in Wikipedia is not a get out of jail free card; many of your edits have been incorrect, and my comments have been an attempt to steer you towards the right course of behavior. Ironholds (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were referring to our conversation with you, I would agree with Ironholds. We have not been unconstructive, there is merely a system in place to deal with unconstructive editing, which, intentionally or not (I assume the latter), a lot of your edits have been. — neuro^(talk) 18:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to List of McCloud episodes, you will be blocked from editing. — neuro^(talk) 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Unsourced Materials

I'm going to give you one final, very clear warning and hope you heed it; you seem to be putting in quite a bit of time to try and help wikipedia, and that's always a good thing if the time can be allotted appropriately. If there is unsourced material in an article, and it is not in itself controvertial, or a violation of the BLP policies, or "likely to be challenged" (to quoth WP:REFERENCE) you do not need to remove it as "unsourced material". It would be lovely if every article had nice inline citations every few sentences, but that is unlikely to happen any time soon. If it is controversial, fine, but I hardly think people are likely to challenged an episode list from a TV series. You'd be far better putting your efforts into finding sources for the information (try google, I'm constantly suprised at how effective it is at finding things) and inserting inline citations from it than removing vast swathes of information. If you continue to delete and blank bits after this I will have to consider it vandalism (since after multiple AGF warnings, comments and bits of advice you've continued nonetheless) and I will open a thread at WP:ANI to that effect. Ironholds (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I second that. You did the same thing to Fierrabras (opera) today, removing valuable and non-controversial information about the chronology of the manuscript score which to those who know the subject is present in several of the sources listed in this already well-referenced article. As Ironholds points out, you don't need an inline citation for every single statement in a well-referenced article. I've added an inline citation, so that it won't be removed again. Incidentally, by the time I added the citation, someone else had already reverted your deletion as vandalism. Frankly, those kinds of edits are bordering on vandalism, especially since you don't add the deleted material with a message to the talk page so other editors can be alerted to it, and especially since you are editing in an area where you do not have any expertise and are not familiar with the literature. Thanks Voceditenore (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

DaffyDuckDied, thank you very much for participating in my Rfa, which was successful with 80 Support, 5 Oppose, 6 Neutral. The comments were overwhelming, and hopefully I can live up to the expectation of the community.

I would also like to thank my nominator Realist² and my co-nom Orane (talk), and special mention to Acalamari and Lenticel ^(talk) for the kindness from the start. Regards, Efe

--Efe (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Barnstar | My RFA | Design by L'Aquatique

		The Mizu onna sango15 Barnstar
		Thank you to all who participated in my RFA- regardless of whether you supported or opposed, all feedback is important to me. I look forward to proving in the coming months that the trust placed in me by the community is not misplaced. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello!

He Died

Finawwy! I got my fiwst animaw dinnew! I didn't get that vewy scwewy wabbit, but at weast I got that siwwy, cwazy ducky! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looney kid (talk • contribs) 21:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]