User talk:Canadian-Bacon

Your edits to Batote

I have reverted your edits on the article. Please read As of. It is a feature used to identify articles that have expiring information. - Ganeshk (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake, I'm new what can I say --Canadian-Bacon 03:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Welcome to Wikipedia.

Welcome!

Hello, Canadian-Bacon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sirius Black

No problem, thanks for letting me know! I probably should have checked more carefully before reverting, myself... oh well, no harm done.  :) -RaCha'ar 05:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Illuminatus Trilogy revert

You might not be aware that the anonymous editor you reverted at The Illuminatus! Trilogy has asked for an explanation of the revert on the talk page. Although the plot information seems sound from what I remember of the book, the anon shot himself in the foot by adding "A lot more stuff happens etc etc" which is my guess why you reverted it and I agree. Anyway, I thought I'd invite you to add your own 2 cents. 23skidoo 17:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. What's strange is the anon gives a pretty good argument in support of his/her edits, but then you see him/her making a smart-aleck remark in the article. Oh well. I last read the books about 5 years ago and I remember a few of the points in the summary, such as "The Mgt" and the like, but as I said on the talk page, the anon did call the accuracy of the information into question with that last line. Amazing what a few words can do. 23skidoo 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem! :)

I couldn't think of any other arguments to really make - you and the nominator made them pretty clear - so I decided I'd pitch in to clarify. :) Have a great day! Srose (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Biased

WIKIPEDIA IS SO BIASED AGAINST CHRISTIANITY AND FOR THE MUSLIMS IT SICKENS ME!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.184.241.143 (talk • contribs)

What do you mean dude..I'm not affiliated with this company (but I have appeared in amateur porn movies before).Courtney Akins 02:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)