User talk:TableManners

Hello, leave a message by clicking here, and I will respond here.

I assume you brought this AfD in good faith, however you have already made your opinion known quite clearly and repetition does not help make your points any better. I'd be happy to discuss the issues with you in appropriate talk forums. —Whig (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008,
your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of god, I am not going to create an account like it say's all over these pages and from users that are "volontair", and I think it's very inappropriate to remove information about sideeffects of Ex. Vaccine from the Vaccine page of wiki. And I know there are some companies and governments that do not wish that some information should be appropriate to spread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.0.101 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TableManners! I eventually plan to do that for a lot of the articles, it just takes a lot of time to do, and I want to make sure the map is as correct as it can be. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. TableManners^C·U·T 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We need more people like you contributing. TableManners^C·U·T 05:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UA 175

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Airlines_Flight_175#Arthur_Rubin_sabotage_-_Golbez_Vendetta

You reminded me of manners towards editor Golbez I have accused him of a personal vendetta because he deleted my factual entry, and blocked my IP

• without giving a reason
• denigrating my person
• his jumbled choice of words shows that he is not fully concentrating, he is rushing his work
• he probably did not read what I wrote, properly.. he just saw hologrammes and switched off
• my additions to the article were factual, referenced and stand up to scrutiny
• my additions to the article were NOT AN OPINION whereas my contribution on the TALK page *WAS* an opinion.
• Golbez based his deletion and blocking on my OPINION in TALK, he probably did not delete the MAIN ARTICLE addition by me because if it's content (which was, as I said, factual and pertinent ONLY)

I hereby request arbitration from you and ask you to revert the deletion in the main article.

211.233.41.27 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (formerly 203.172.184.19 formerly 124.197.2.220)[reply]

Although you and I may not have the same POV on homeopathy and its related topics, it is a pleasure to watch you respond to people who have more extreme POV than you and then you provide some good moderating advice [[1]]. Good work. We all need moderating advice occasionally. I welcome it from you too as long as it is done with civility and with as much NPOV as you can muster. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I think:) We all have POVs. I am a homeopathic skeptic, but if you see me adding content beyond what reliable sources or in violoation of WP:V, feel free to call me on it. Also, I agree that civility is important. I do need to work on that myself, as do others. TableManners^C·U·T 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd drop in a note as well and say thanks for not going after me on the RfC after we both got a bit in each others' way. Although we may not have agreed, and may not still or ever, you declined to pile on. I've been a Wikipedian for a few years, and I'm not afraid of working in controversial areas when necessary on behalf of NPOV. I do have a POV of my own as well, of course, as we all do. If we respect NPOV then all significant views should be represented and there shouldn't be a cause for conflict. We should try to reach that kind of consensus where it isn't a battle all the time because that is simply not sustainable for anyone. —Whig (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too Whig. I agree with most if not all of what you wrote. And even if we never agree on our POVs, I do hope that we can continue to make progress, in one direction or the other depending on the article, in the realm of what should be included in an article. TableManners^C·U·T 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Phyllis Schlafly photo

What exactly do you want me to do? I am clueless. The fixed image is already uploaded.--Cberlet (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: A return to the old standards. Thank you.--STX 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TableManners!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN3153 2.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TableManners!
We thank you for uploading Image:Phyllis-schlafly-2007-03 cc.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Museums in Minnesota/scorecard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]