Talk:Laird Hamilton: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 81.153.158.144 - "→‎Poor quality article.: "
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:
This article is broadly incoherant and laughably childish in its fanboyishness. Come on lads, if you want to contribute to wikipedia at least learn to construct a coherant sentence. I can't be bothered but please someone re-write in a encyclopaedic fashion (ha) with more references.
This article is broadly incoherant and laughably childish in its fanboyishness. Come on lads, if you want to contribute to wikipedia at least learn to construct a coherant sentence. I can't be bothered but please someone re-write in a encyclopaedic fashion (ha) with more references.
--[[User:Spider669|Spider669]] ([[User talk:Spider669|talk]]) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
--[[User:Spider669|Spider669]] ([[User talk:Spider669|talk]]) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


This article is HILARIOUS! It should be left exactly as it is if only for the comedic value.

Revision as of 17:45, 16 September 2009

Poor quality article.

Image was incorrectly labeled as "The Wave" when it was actually taken 6 years after, Corrected now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.158.144 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this article is overly praising and gushing, and the author is excessively enamored with the subject. It lacks the neutrality of a useful wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.164.180 (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is poorly written, badly referenced and lacking in objectivity. Comments please... --LostEditor 08:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has sufficiant documentation and facts to back up the writing piece. The article should not be deleted. Opinions and questionable items have been removed.--75.89.48.37 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the remark in the edit summary about the PROD being an attack. The edits have improved the aricle, it seems to me. But why go through all the work and then PROD what is obviously a notable article? I don't get it... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is broadly incoherant and laughably childish in its fanboyishness. Come on lads, if you want to contribute to wikipedia at least learn to construct a coherant sentence. I can't be bothered but please someone re-write in a encyclopaedic fashion (ha) with more references. --Spider669 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article is HILARIOUS! It should be left exactly as it is if only for the comedic value.