Without relevance. John I leave as in his discussion, in case you do not read: I think the article about the famous painter of Jimena de la Frontera has the same significance or more than any other article whose content consists of a sentence where you can find dates of birth and death (if anything) from the biography of someone who is (or any other subject, because there are items … to be eating them out separately), examples , as follows: Sanda Lado i, Benny Ibarra, Kevin Altieri, Fabienne Keller … give some examples, so I can go to infinity. By the way, I’m for anything that painter, that only happens Lobillo surname is widespread throughout the country and even abroad, which has existed coincidence, I’m sorry but I’m very proud to call me that. Now, do what you want with that article, but then, I would totally disagree with that others do not carry that “rotulito. A greeting.- Lobillo (Talk) 11:20 8 jun 2008 (UTC) I do not think you understood what I said, I have no more data to contribute to that article, which is what I think is there, I know the path the painter, is what I found online. I certainly hope that neither I am also califiqu is as Lobillo Jorge, I just have a personality. A greeting.- Lobillo (Talk) 11:29 8 jun 2008 (UTC) No need wait so What for , I have not had any problems, just the user who added the “letretito destroy” it did so because he thought I was the painter, of course I am not, delete it without further ado, come on, it seems that you please, but having this simple feature of “eagerness to erase”, many articles (including some published by him, sure they are “worthy of delete “), without more, a greeting, so always Lobillo .– (Talk) 12:07 8 jun 2008 (UTC) I think has been a clear error of Dermot, who has not proven its very understandable assumption. For me, Lobillo, which is not the painter and it has nothing to do with the artist (aside from sharing surname), is one of many Wikipedians important, and their cooperation has been extensive and exemplary in this encyclopedia, enough to remove immediate sign of possible irrelevance.The article is completely lawful, much more than many others who walk by wikipedia, and I think for any user is a tasteful dish such “offenses” or misunderstandings. Greetings. – QuiR H (talk) 12:23 8 jun 2008 (UTC) Yes, but see … not the sign of possible relevance, says that might not be relevant because the case or the writing of this article led to believe that it should be deleted , and makes no allusion to the paucity of information as you indicated, since for that already outlines the different templates. The addition of information requests that template to which you refer, is not nothing but a link to discussion of that article and that’s what I did. I was not talking about you, but Dermot. I do not understand that you’ve taken so badly. Greetings. – QuiR H (talk) 14:14 8 jun 2008 (UTC) Do not know what is happening … but I still do not understand … I’m not one of the authors of that article … and really do not understand …I do not know what to ask me to do with the article, I read the link you have provided, although he had already taken a look over before, and it is true that section it is right, a sketch, but adequate. I just wanted help with something that seemed obvious at first and apparently not for everyone. Nothing that may follow as an article of no relevance … what can we do, the fact is that although it was not to give me equal, are not concern me at all … Greetings. – QuiR H (talk) 16:40 8 jun 2008 (UTC) To serve no more hassle for you, or for other users, nor for me, I changed the “rotulito” with an “on WN” of that give way to all the users option to see ifthe item is worthy of staying in the free or not and should not trouble over (again) for any other user who also has the same view I have. A greeting. – Lobillo (Talk) 11:29 9 jun 2008 (UTC)

Posted in News

Comments are closed.