User talk:Paulmoloney: Difference between revisions

Hello Paulmoloney, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• You can introduce yourself on the new user log.
• You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
• Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 02:04, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing my mistake. Cheers.ant_ie 18:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You criticised the deletions and you dismissed my argument, please read my post. -- Tompsci 00:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of gay rights activist, Its david who is opposed - That was an attempted compromise.--Irishpunktom\^talk 22:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, it's an over-wordy compromise that doesn't really work. "Human rights activist" is best. David | Talk 23:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now you see the problem. wanna get involved? --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I've taken the mediation case about Derek Acorah, filed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-04 Derek Acorah. Please add any additional comments or replies on the case page, to bring the summary of information and opinions in one place. If you have compromise ideas, it would also be nice to post them on the page. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your message. Apologies for reverting your edit. This was caused, I assume, by an edit conflict. What I meant to do was remove the dubious looking link listing the so-called divorce petition - the authenticity of which is being challenged. If you look at the story history, I reveretd at 1223 - your edit had been made one minute before - unbeknown to me - hence the conflict. I've now reverted to your version - but I think the external link to the divorce petition should still go - although I know you didn't add that. Hope that's ok. Escaper7 14:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for letting me know. --Paul Moloney 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit the NAMBLA article talk page Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#categories_again and voice your disgust at NAMBLA being included as an LGBT organisation. Alternatively, if you believe that this is indeed an LGBT organisation, then you're welcome to voice that opinion. Either way, discussion is needed!Enzedbrit 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]