This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tonylongman (talk | contribs) at 06:48, 3 July 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:48, 3 July 2008 by Tonylongman (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Hi, I am the webmaster at atoboldon.com and this article was referenced only by british tabloids to try to sell newspapers. There is no way to "prove" a negative from our side and this as I said before, was totally ignored by all but one british paper trying to make a story out of nothing. And then mentioned by another rag in the UK. It never became a story, and to include here an article that says "allegedly written" when there was nothing ever alleged against Mr Boldon is highly irresponsible.
I trust that you will understand why we have deleted this false reference. There is inherent danger when supposed media houses take something supposedly found online, unproven and purely speculative, and attempt to make it a fact or even alleged which means that there is some possible factual basis behind it. There was none, and anyone within reach of a lawsuit stayed far away for a reason. We will continue to delete this ridiculous reference which negatively impacts Ato's character based on innuendo and an unproven internet fabrication.
If someone wrote an email letter, signed your name to it and put it online and it entailed rape, it would not be at all fair for a media house to say you were alleged in a letter to have committed rape, would it? Based on what? We trust we will not have this concern again.
 Archives |
hey, sorry about the long wait for reply. yeah, some one did use my account, however i reverted changes, and they copped a falcon punch to the face. haha yeah. sorry for the inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uryu Ishida (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Prodigious
Hi Vianello,
I noticed that you reverted my edit on the prodigious redirect. I understand that the word "prodigious" refers to more than the child prodigy article covers, however no other articles listed on the prodigy disambiguation page could be called "prodigious" because, other than child prodigy, they are all proper names. For this reason, the only article to which "prodigious" could currently refer is child prodigy. Would you mind if I redirected prodigious back to child prodigy?
Neelix (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Vianello,
- Thank you for your kind reply as well as your advice about archiving my talk page. I have done so according to your suggestion.
- Happy editing,
Talk:Dalits
Do you have any idea what is going on at Talk:Dalits? Quite unintentionally, I seem to have stepped into a hornet's nest...and one of the hornets is very angry!!! Question...are 58.160.80.210 and Arjuna316 the same editor? I feel he is archiving and omitting and hiding talk that is very relevant and informative to the article. His actions make me question, again, his motives. Had I not been at the computer I would have missed his laughable threats. I don't really want to get involved with another "wack-job" but I also don't like the thought of that "wack-job" making threats. I was not in the least bit contentious or competitive. I tried to find a higher, common ground. I guess I should just....Move On!...thanks for letting me purge.--Buster7 (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)