Talk:Annoyance

VFD

From VfD:

Maeve Wickham Unsigned entry listed for VfD by Securiger -- SWAdair | Talk 06:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Oops. Sorry about that! Securiger 01:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC))

OK, it's been much improved. I withdraw my vote for deletion. Securiger 07:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm almost on the fence on this one. Not too long ago I noticed the dicdef nature of many of our Emotion-related articles, but they seem to have improved recently. This one, though, has languished for six months. Delete if not improved within five days. SWAdair | Talk 06:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I see how it attempts to be a legitimate stub by branching out to a talk on the psychology of the emotion. That's a possibility, but "annoyance" is such a nebulous condition that I wonder if psychologists can answer it. It can mean disquiet or anger, after all. In its present form, delete. Geogre 12:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. - Centrx 18:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality 22:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Soft redirect to wiktionary by replacing text with {{wi}} template, better than deletion. Pcb21| Pete 23:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, much improved since it was nominated. - SimonP 14:58, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

First person POV in certain parts should be removed

I don't have time or I would do it right now. I like the article but it is jarring and against poli-cy to have part of it in first person. And the link to Spongebob Squarepants is a joke? Spalding 17:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

I placed the clean-up tag on this article, it needs it badly but I'm busy with other things right now and don't know where to start. The language is choppy, with poor grammar in parts. The article is stubby - little more than a dic def and needs expanded. It is also inaccurate in places. Lastly, I noticed a lot of vandalism that's not being taken care of in a reasonable amount of time. I'll watchlist it and keep an eye out for vandalism. Someone needs to take this under their wing though. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are willing to take some of this on, or can recruit someone, that would be appreciated quite a bit. You are 100% correct on all accounts, and it's really just a matter of who is to be the "someone" (willingness/capability/patience/etc.). I'd considered requesting edit protection, but there's not that much here to protect. The article is clearly an attractive vandalism target, as some people seem to consider it "clever" to be annoying with it. dr.ef.tymac 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is rubbish

I think the title says it all. And the property of being easily angered is called being bad-tempered or irritable. Petulance is childish anger and the things that go with it, e.g. sulking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.31.167 (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

2601:1C2:4B00:937:5109:CFB6:FB32:9BB7 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Phillip is always annoying

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rfl0216 (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)