User talk:MarcGarver

UFO Commander Seven

Thanks for the heads up. AfD time. DesertSky85451 22:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Disadvantaged

You said: As you disputed the prod of Disadvantaged on the article's talk page, I have de-proded it and informed the original prod'ing editor. QuiteUnusual 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm disadvanted by not knowing what a prod is! --Mike 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You are appreciated

Dear QuiteUnusual,

I went back to vehicle safety system to have a look at what I posted - I think I had a bit of a grumpy day today. I was up late last night after deciding to have a look at the kind of things that were getting deleted, and got quite annoyed at the lack of any explanation, etc. etc.

You obviously have what I expect is the rather boring task of going through the posts - I can't remember whether my comments got grumpier but if they did - apologies! - But you are appreciated - most of the posts I saw deserved to go and if they all stayed it would be a complete mess!

Someone has directed me to the discussion on deletion policy, I've had my say there, and hopefully some of my suggestions will be taken up. --Mike 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Emergency Warning System for Vehicles

Thank you for letting me know. I'll go ahead and review their comments, and file an AfD as necessary. --Elonka 18:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Raymond Mintz

Yes, I saw that (watchlist) and you're probably right. I'm in the process of afd-ing it right now. Thanks for the heads up, though. Natalie 21:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

DoctorMartin

Dear QuiteUnusual, thanks for letting me know about the removal of the AFD for the Barton article. I hadn't realised there had previously been an 'AFD review' for this (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing - still finding my way!), and am very happy to abide by this review. As long as there is a significant viewpoint that this article has significant content, that's fine by me 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Julia Sinédia-Cazour AfD

Hello there,

I noticed you agreed with my prod to delete Julia Sinédia-Cazour. The prod was deleted but I have since listed it for AfD. If you would like to way in, you can do so here. Thanks.--Thomas.macmillan 20:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD time again

Thanks for noticing KHL Express recently, when you gave it a prod-2. If you're interested, that bundle of articles is now at AfD [1] after an anonymous objection. --Mereda 07:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Viewpoint Media Player

Nice job!

E. Sn0 =31337= has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

E. Sn0 =31337= 02:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it is nice to be appreciated on occasion! QuiteUnusual 13:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for creation backlog

Hey. Thanks for the help here. There is an enormous backlog, and it grows faster than I can work on it. Your work here is definitely appreciated.

One note though, generally {{subst:afc top}} goes below the header for a section, as this makes section editing easier. Thanks. -- kenb215 talk 04:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, will do. thanks! QuiteUnusual 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

4231 menu restored

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you supported the article's deletion via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jagmeet Singh Brar

You recently gave Jagmeet Singh Brar a {{prod2}}. In fact, as a former member of India's parliament, he is automatically notable. I cleaned up the article, and I think it's now an acceptable stub. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs)

Fair enough. I couldn't tell he was notable from the article as it stood. QuiteUnusual 15:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Wishing you the best for the holidays and a Happy New Year! I want to thank you for your continued support to the project, and more specifically for helping me with my articles - providing invaluable advice (beyond the call of duty) and making the Wikipedia experience a quite unusually pleasant one <Grin>. Best regards --Lperez2029 18:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, and a happy holiday to you too! QuiteUnusual 20:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

User page vandalism

I reverted the Craig Charles' vandal's changes to your user page. He's a regular vandal, normally with an IP suffixed with 58.84. For some reason he always starts at Craig's article which I have watchlisted, so after a quick vandalising spree it's another IP blocked for a day or two... One Night In Hackney 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, beats me why people bother wasting their time with vandalism. QuiteUnusual 20:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

{{

open source funding

I just removed another tag from it , but it will surely be deleted unless someone fixes it. Perhaps you have the time.DGG 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It shouldn't be tagged again of course because it has been contested once. Anyway, I've moved it to Funding of open source software as this seems a more appropriate name and done some wikify and cleanup. QuiteUnusual 10:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

An article is more than just a blip of nonsense, it requires some properly formatted content - the content in the article remains virtually unchanged. If you want the article to stay, you improve it, I don't want the article to stay, it's a foolish article, but if someone wants to fix it they have to make it into an article, not just renaming it and hoping that that improves it. Should you feel it merits existence, feel free to improve it to the point where it looks like real articles on Wikipedia, pick a featured article to use as a template to see how an article should look and develop it so as to make it worth keeping. Were I someone that liked the article and what it was trying to convey, I would try to improve it, instead I am pointing out how wrong it is and expecting it to either be improved or removed, I don't care which. 74.13.31.42 03:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what a good article should look like. If you want it deleted, you need to raise it at WP:AFD. The deletion proposal was contested, so it cannot be proposed for deletion again - it has to go to AFD. I merely tidied it up a bit and changed it to a more appropriate name. I also don't care if it is deleted or not, it seems pretty trivial to me. The main issue I have is your "expectation". This is a voluntary project, nobody has to do anything. So, if you can't be bothered to clean it up or propose it at AFD, don't expect other people to and don't keep going on about it. QuiteUnusual 10:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Nice work on the Shannon Doherty filmography! 82.2.139.211 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of LOTUS self defense

An editor has nominated LOTUS self defense, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOTUS self defense and 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. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 10:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I submitted it to afd. I picked it up originally because it was uncategorized and tagged it for deletion on notability grounds. If you can address that issue it would be great. CheersPeter Rehse 10:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Chrislk02, award you this barnstar for your revert on Jack Black. I was on a wiki break on the way to a weekend of partying when my 12 year old sister (who loves wikipedia) call me and said, "There is something that DOES NOT belong on the Jack Black article, how do I fix it." I told her to check the history and sure enough, an wikipedian (you) reverted it back to the proper version and saved the day! Thank you so very much for your hard work, it is very very much appreciated. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I just wish the vandals would just grow up QuiteUnusual 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You and me both! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

USMS / Grammar

Thank you for your interesting comment on my page. I am quite confident that the apostrophe is required. I could be mistaken, or a difference between UK and US English may apply in this case. I would be very interested if you find a reliable source which specifically justifies not using a possesive form in this sort of case. If anyone else agrees/disagreees with me on the USMS page it may also be worth putting our discussion on the USMS talk page. Regards, Mesoso 12:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't polish up on your Falklands War knowledge?

- - QuiteUnusual, with all respects you are QuiteTheUsual and just rely on Max Hastings's account of the Falklands War just like a 12 or 13 year old kid would. Why don't you polish up on your knowledge of the ground fighting in the Falklands by getting hold of "Victory in the Falklands", "Razor's Edge" and "5th Infantry Brigade in the Falklands"? You would be suprised to know that the British authors admit two Royal Marine platoons of 42 Commando were defeated on Mount Wall (morning of 3rd June and night of 5/6 June) and the equivalent of a 3 Para platoon were defeated at Murrell Bridge on the night of 6/7 June. In other words the equivalent of a British company were put to shame in these patrol actions, abandoning a laser target designator (Mount Wall) and a radio (Murrell Bridge) by Argentina's 602st and 602nd SF units of the Argentinean Army.

Your insultingly phrased comments don't deserve a response. Suggest you polish up your etiquette! QuiteUnusual 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)