User talk:FillsHerTease

Welcome!

Hello, FillsHerTease, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, FillsHerTease. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Who

Why is it not possible that The Who are one of the three most important British rock acts along with The Beatles and The Rolling Stones? I've heard that from many quarters for decades. They have even been regarded as The World's Greatest Rock Band, something even the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame acknowledges. The Rolling Stone line about the Holy Trinity of British Rock is certainly NOT about The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who being the "first three" or the "first wave," because MANY British rock bands pre-date The Who, including the likes of The Kinks, The Animals and The Yardbirds. So if they're not referring to a "first wave" with their Holy Trinity line, what do you think they're referring to?

Additionally, the 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide opens The Who section with, "Ranking just below the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the Great Triumvirate of British rock, The Who..."

I think it's pretty clear what they're saying. 72.43.153.30 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible because The Who are NOT one of the three most important British rock acts. They MOST CERTAINLY aren't the world's greatest rock band. Not even remotely close! Led Zeppelin were bigger, more popular, and more important IN EVERY SINGLE WAY than both The Rolling Stones and The Who. The Rolling Stone line about the Holy Trinity of British Rock most certainly IS about The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who being the first three of the first wave. The Kinks, The Animals and The Yardbirds were all formed about 1 year prior to The Who. Are you seriously suggesting they were the first wave and The Who were the second, or are you saying they were the third??? Don't be ridiculous. Those bands were important and but they didn't go out and conquer the world the way the The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who did. They are considered to be the first wave of British rock. I've already told you what the Rolling Stone article was referring to - I don't need to explain it again. You are wrong that I am wrong. All of this is completely and utterly irrelevant though. Our personal opinions mean nothing. The only thing of importance are quotes from legitimate sources. If you can find a legitimate source which says that The Who are one of the three most important British rock bands then update the article to include that comment again. If you can't then find something else. That's all there is. Kindly don't send me private messages again. I am not interested in your opinion or in having an argument with you. Thanks. FillsHerTease (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Issue in Sachin Tendulkar article

Hello,

At the start of the page, it is mentioned that Sachin Tendulkar is regarded as one of the greatest BATSMAN of all time. The word BATSMAN is absolutely illogical is this context as current context suggests more than a few BATSMEN who are considered to be included in greatest category.

The word BATSMAN must be replaced with BATSMEN.

Thank you!!

Well spotted! Thanks for the message. I have fixed the article as per your request. FillsHerTease (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Tendulkar the greatest batsman.

Hey there, Tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time considered by many great crickets, experts and fans. Whether it is poll or comments or other, the winner was Sachin. Well thank you. Wikipedia wants proper sources, okay then I will add proper reference/source to the article. Then don't remove or revert. And about vandalism, I've not done any kind of vandalism. I came in Wikipedia juat because of some wrong informations of some pages. ARNAB22 (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per my private message to you - which I sent to you as a courtesy - please do not reply to me here. A section has been started on the Sachin Tendulkar Talk Page and all communication regarding this topic should occur there. Thanks and Regards, FillsHerTease (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

complaint against User:ARNAB22

This is a complaint against User:ARNAB22 ...Sir i just found out from the talk page of this user that even u have asked him to behave. But he simply refuses to do so. For instance, on the Bollywood wikipedia page, he has been posting a new pic of Shah Rukh Khan even though there is already a pic of Shah Rukh given there. And in the caption he writes that Shah Rukh has won "most number of awards", without giving any citation. Every time someone removes this pic and citation, he again posts it there, despite being warned against this. He recently did this on 20 Jan, 2016. In addition, he uses poor English in many of his other edits, and has been warned on this too by other users (see his talk page). I request you to take action against User:ARNAB22. Thanks.117.197.23.118 (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please only label edits as minor if they are formatting changes, typo corrections etc. and do not alter content of article. See: Help:Minor edit for more info. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:September 11 attacks for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the Talk:September 11 attacks page for general discussion. My comments were demonstrable facts which were direct responses to comments made by an anonymous user. Meanwhile, both you and David J Johnson have used the Talk:September 11 attacks page for 'soapboxing' and the expression of personal views. Kindly reinstate my comments and then review the "Talk page guidelines" yourself. Wikipedia does not belong to you, nor does the September 11 Talk page. You have no right to remove factual comments I have made, whilst simultaneously 'allowing' yourself and others to express personal views and make blanket statements which you have no right whatsoever to make. FillsHerTease (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

decimate, plethora

I do love your point on "decimate," and learned something about "plethora," thanks.

There's an old Matt Helm novel where secret agent Helm is speaking on the phone to someone impersonating his boss, and realizes it's an imposter because "Mac" misuses "decimate", "disinterested" and a couple others I can no longer remember.

What's your feeling on "comprise"? TJRC (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello love

Hello love 105.112.216.66 (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies

I apologize profusely if I offended you or anything like that, I was stressed, I swear I'm really sorry. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]