User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 3
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Freesexuality, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! LoveArtist (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Re David Ferguson (impresario)
We apologize if you feel we are "hectoring" you. We understand it is of little interest to you, but we are the victims of untruths on this page. We understand that Wikipedia is comprised of volunteers. We appreciate the good work you all do. We made a point of never making any personal attack on you, while our lives are being distorted by disreputable assertions on Mr. Ferguson's page.
We are quite versed in American Law. We are asking you what we need to do to refute the false assertions on this page. We have no personal agenda other than the right to provide the truth, and nothing but the truth.
We merely want to know what is the acceptable procedure to state verifiable statements which refute what Ferguson and his writers have presented as fact. We are not moving forward because we do not want our IP blocked.
We are asking for help and all we are told is to read the rules (which we read before posting what you removed). We are asking how to proceed other than being relegated to side pages while Mr. Ferguson's page stands as truth. It can can be readily proven to perpetuate myths about hard-working people whose history, work and LIVES he has damaged.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. ALSO, we are not the first ones to object to the comments. We think that is a big red warning sign that Mr. Ferguson has a pattern of not presenting the truth. We are not in any way associated with anyone else who has made comments, on his page or the side pages.
Have a good day and we mean that! Thank you again, in advance, for your help.
Re David Ferguson (impresario) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damesmartypants (talk • contribs) 08:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The page uses Ferguson's own interviews to verify his info! Isn't that in violation of your policies?
You are denying others the right refute this page's numerous distortions and exaggerations. If links to published books (not self-published), reputable websites, and footnotes provided, will that be enough? May I post scans of legal judgments and government documents to verify statements?
You allow Ferguson's statements, conclusions, assertions and inferences to remain without citations. How can you justify that while removing our detailed refutations?
You claim we are violating his rights, but what about our rights? He distorts our history, lives and work and misquotes our books, magazines, interviews and other sources, but you delete our input? It's OUR living biographies and accomplishments which he is distorting.
Much of what is stated on this page is refuted by many third parties PRIOR to this page being posted. Yet his version stands and our comments removed?
For example, he claims management of certain rock groups, whereas various books, documentaries, interviews and sites all state someone else managed that group during the time frame and events he claims as his work. Or that he managed a group, but during a different time frame than he states. There's no verification on his end, and when we posted accurate but different dates, you removed our info?
Doesn't your removal of our information violate Wikipedia's policies, when we provided far more specific info than the original writer?
You removed text which was very detailed as to specific events, persons, places, photos, books and websites available to verify the new notations. Although he did not sign his page, original input was provided by Ferguson to his writer(s). Much is lifted from ifuc.org and other sites supervised by Ferguson.
By allowing only his version to stand, you are perpetuating the errors purported by Ferguson, without verification from him. His minimal footnotes referring to books don't provide specific quotes nor give page numbers, thus not substantiating his text.
Everything we posted can be proven in a court of law. But we are artists and musicians, without the funds to take him to court.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Damesmartypants (talk • contribs) 18:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this Damesmartypants character seems to have gone overboard on the legal history section again. She is clearly using this as a WP:Soap and has some personal issue with Mr. Ferguson. You may want to check out her recent additions and comments on David Ferguson (impresario). Switchintoglide (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Re vandalism
This IP has over 100 users associated with it. Please can you give us a clue as to what act of vandalism occurred and we will seek to resolve the situation. We see you reverted it but we don't know what it was that was reverted? 193.195.92.146 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Re: vandalism
Thanks for letting us know. This certainly looks like someone messing around. We will investigate this further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.92.146 (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Matthew S. Thomas
This page is true. He is a great basketball player and is going to be a great basketball player in the NBA. Why would you propose this deletion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballkid9836 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The Dead Detective
[edit]In what possible way could my short, simple article briefly outlining the series premise and bibliography be construed as 'blatant advertising'? Aside from an ellipses, I can't remember saying anything even mildly complimentary or, for that matter, derogatory about it. --6afraidof7 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
On years articles
[edit]Hi, I have been wondering if awards should be unlinked or not. While Nobel prize has more links to sub prizes, the other prizes don't. Such as the Templeton Prize on the article 2000. So what should be used? (On WP policies, links are allowed in subtitles if the whole title is a link.) Thanks. — Orion11M87 (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Seduction Community articles
[edit]Hi, thanks for watching out for the quality of seduction community articles. Next time you find one that is questionable, I would really appreciate it if you left a message on the talk page for a week or so to give editors a chance to improve it before an AFD. Sometimes, we see articles sounding promotional, POV, or blatantly lacking sources like David X. However, in some cases (unlike with David X), the articles can be improved to a keepable state with a bit of work. --SecondSight (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
imdb copyright violations
[edit]Hello. Rather than tag these articles for deletion, simply removing the synopsis is a better alternative. The rest of the stub has very little info but it's still a perfectly ok stub. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the copyright violations don't really need to be expunged from the history, especially in cases like these where the amount of text is very small and the content copied is very widely available to start with. The stubs resulting from removing the synopsis are not, as you seem to think, useless. For one, film stubs are picked up by bots and members of WikiProject Films are continuously expanding the shortest stubs. They can't do that if the stub is deleted. And they're certainly not "essentially empty directory listings, without the slightest hint of why the subject is worth writing about". Note that the synopsis is in fact completely irrelevant in terms of notability of a certain film. Even after removing the synopsis, the stubs you're trying to delete still list the film title, director, year of production, stars. That's not a lot of info but this is what a stub is. They also have incoming links which makes it likely that someone will expand the stub and most include a link to the imdb which makes it easy for readers to get more info there. I think you're misunderstanding WP:NOTDIRECTORY: stubs, even stubs with very very thin info are important. See Ailleville for a good example: stubs on French communes were carefully created by a semi-automatic process run by Dr. Blofeld and some, such as Ailleville have seen some action since. This is exactly how the wiki works. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
[edit]
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.
Thanks for your support in my RFA!!
|
year pages
[edit]Are you referring to the ones I self-reverted a few minutes ago? I did them by mistake, having strayed onto them in an adjacent nav-box. Tony (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- In future, don't waste my time. Tony (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad your time was wasted. Next time, express yourself more clearly to save me needless trouble rather than accusing me, and I'll thank you for pointing out my mistake. As it is, I withdraw my thanks expressed earlier. Aggression usually ends up rebounding, as it has for you in this case. Tony (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Grant Foster
[edit]I've raised an objection to his deletion. I don't know the man, but I do know the 'Liverpool competition'. Peridon (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Date linking in Emmett Till
[edit]Just a heads up, this practice is deprecated nowadays, see WP:UNLINKDATES, in fact I delinked the dates in this article a week or so ago. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually this is cookie
[edit]But thank you for the warm welcome. Could you explain why my comments have to be deleted?? I did not do anything to you, and for that matter why do you keep on calling me kk?? I really am a different person. I am kola. Killkola is my friend tims name in a game we play and he tries to get everyone to chase me. Hence. his name. Anyways. Thank you for the welcome....4twenty42o (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
yea.. but thats crap and i think you know it... But no matter4twenty42o (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Man you must be really paranoid or hate kk.. Did he steal your wife or something? Or is all this because of that Arthashastra non-sense? I bet you hold grudges for a long time. Its sad really 'cause i did not do anything wrong. I just left myself signed into wikipedia at work. I had no idea kk was gonna use it to harass you. But, thats life i suppose. I am not trying to attack you. I really dgaf, but what exactly were you hoping to do by coming here. 3 days after i reverted a comment i made and someone else undid that revision, you come by to... what exactly? Let me know you are paranoid and think i am someone i am not? Or perhaps you wish to goad me into a fight? It seems rather petty. Immature, if you will.
I really do not have a problem with you. I have seen what you do on here. Its rather noble and quite respectable. Kind of sucks my buddy doesn't like you. BUT I AM NOT HIM. And thats between you two.
As far as violating an indefinite block goes. I should not have been blocked to begin with. But i do like it here and i am not and have not caused any problems. i would just as soon make a new name than fight the powers that be over something as silly as a name. Cheers mate.. 4twenty42o (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yea thats the game we play.. I am not going to argue with you. Its obviously pointless to even attempt to reason with you. I can see now why kk likes harassing you. You are nothing more than a cyber bully. Have a wonderful time banning me or reporting me or reverting my edits just because you can. Because we both know you dont care what i type, you will try to find a reason to get rid of it just to be a dick. Like i said i dgaf and i am most definately not on a set schedule.See you around i am sure. 4twenty42o (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Haha ok im going to wash my hands of you. please take some time off and find yourself. Take whatever steps you feel you need to take.
| DGAF | This user does not give a fuck. |
4twenty42o (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Calendar pages
[edit]OK. So how come September 11 is being treated specially? I know the WTC bombings are important. I think that should be in the intro too. You just reverted the Lisbon earthquake. Are you seriously thinking that the destruction of two buildings is more important than a 9.0 earthquake which destroyed an entire city plus most of its inhabitants? Wallie (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Calendar. (media coverage is not that important - it is very local in nature) No. I didn't say that September 11 was not important, and you know it - look at my comments on the Spetember 11 page. It also depends on where you are watching television. There are many many events considered important. It is a matter of opinion. Anyway, if you do a search on September 11 and then November 11, you get more hits for November 11. If you really want an important date, try May 1! Wallie (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you are getting a little upset here. You are also drifting off subject. You are trying to attack me on a peronal basis, or at least trying to present a false impression of my intentions, rather than trying to solve the problem. September 11 is being treated as a one off special case. This is not the only "special" date. If you think it is, then I would think that you really do not want to discuss things. Wallie (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
More. On your most recent outburst. Please keep personal attacks to a minimum. I can see that you are used to bullying others, but it won't wash with me. I have not used bad faith, or even reverted anything. You are reverting what I have said, not the other way around. Wallie (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
re your: At some point, I'm going to have to start keeping track of the bad-faith tactics as you keep rolling them out. I now can add to the list groundless accusations of some sort of bias [1] and telling outright untruths [2]. Your edit-warring is bad enough without your resorting to an arsenal of bad practices. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing biased or untrue about what I stated in these articles. That was not my intention anyway. It is you that is edit warring! You are reversing my edits. I have NOT reversed anything of yours, and you know it. Wallie (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the September 11 article. It mentions FOUR points. I try to bring in only one to other dates, and you won't allow it.
ARTICLE DETAILS:
It is usually the first day of the Coptic calendar and Ethiopian calendar (in the period AD 1900 to AD 2099).
The terms September 11th, 11th September, 11 September, and 9/11 (pronounced "Nine-eleven") have been widely used in the Western media as a shorthand for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon in the United States of America.
In other places of the world the media also use it as shorthand for other events; for example, the September 11, 1973 Coup d'État in Chile is referred to as "El 11 de Septiembre" or "El once" ("September 11" or "The eleventh" in Spanish) as shorthand for the Coup events; September 11 is also Enkutatash or New Year's Day in the Ethiopian calendar.
Thanks. Wallie (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please centralize this discussion at WT:DAYS. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes
[edit]Yes, there is a reason - a misplaced click. Stupidity or carelessness, your choice, but not an intentional revert. -Nunh-huh 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
DJIA point changes
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Looks like I have to call you on a WP:3RR violation. — X S G 10:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- To be clear, you still have an option in order to avert being blocked. — X S G 10:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I stand corrected... 3RR is for people who have performed more than three reverts. You're doing fine if you don't revert these pages again today. — X S G 10:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Date page intro discussion
[edit]Please help us keep the conversation moving forward by providing a response to the question that was asked of you at Wikipedia_talk:DAYS#Agreement.3F. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi - Can you please delete the first paragraph of your recent comment at WT:DAYS? I understand you and Wallie have some history, but regardless of who started it I'm asking you to stop it. Just be cool. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
why?
[edit]Hello! Would you tell me the problem eith my edit? Thank you!Baxter9 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Date pages
[edit]Hi. You are obviously upset with some of my changes to the date formats. Can you tell me why? My main concern about the dates is that they should be "culture neutral". In other words, particular dates have more significance for some people than others. I think the issues here are to do with what country you were born in and what age you are. For example, an older person might consider World War 2 dates, like June 22 to be of great significance. Note that in certain non Western countries, June 22 needs no explanation, whereas the date is unimportant elsewhere. An even older person might consider November 11 or April 25 to be important. A younger person might be concerned mainly with 21st Century events. Wallie (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- This response violates Wikipedia:Civility and is completely uncalled for. I've asked you two nicely to work this out. Now I'm telling you that further violations of this policy will come with consequences, up to and including being blocked. Consider this a level 3 warning from an admin. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is not 'uncalled for', as it was a simple response to the further self-serving nonsense and falsehoods placed by him on my talk page (note especially the word 'response': who, exactly, is baiting whom?). Perhaps your warnings ought to be aimed at the instigator--the one pestering me with nonsense, personal attacks, and pushing a personal POV--instead of myself, and perhaps you ought to outline for him the very simple and proper steps necessary for him to be in line with civility policy, which I've already explained and which you'll note he has refused to do. No stern warnings for him, funnily enough, though he certainly has no compunction about ignoring your warnings regarding mind-reading. Finally, perhaps you'd care to point out where providing facts about someone else's behaviour violating civility policy--instant assumptions of bad faith, obsessive edit-warring in place of actual discussion, flat misunderstandings (at best) of regular policy and ordinary factual incorrectness--constitutes some sort of egregious mis-step, or, especially, at any point, where any of it is misleading, exaggerated, or false. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Incivility is never called for. I don't care what you privately think about other editors, but you MUST NOT characterize them or their edits as (for example) "self-serving nonsense". I asked you above to stop it. You said you would if he would. Not quite the response I was looking for, but OK. If you read his talk page, you'll see I've asked him the same thing. Since then I've seen you but not him violate the civility policy. If he does, I'll give him the same warning I gave you. It doesn't matter who started it or who the instigator is. You'll both stop it. Understand? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Can we please start over again? I just think the calendar pages should be standardized somehow. There should be no "special cases", as other editors will introduce their own special cases, and then there could be disagreements. I still think that the intros should be cleared with a disambiguation page, if needed. As far as POV is concerned, we all have our opinions. You do, and so do I. Wallie (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
re your: Ever more bad faith. If you were actually sincere in your claims of 'moving on', you wouldn't be gratuitously inserting yourself into unrelated disputes, would you? As for your original claims regarding 'consistency', I can only refer you to the words of American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson.
- I was sincere. You did not respond. Wallie (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallie"
Yes. I will take your advice. Wallie (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Re [3] and [4] - these two posts are clearly insulting, and so you are technically violating WP:NPA. Why would you assume Wallie's posts to you are not in good faith? They seem perfectly polite. I think it's obvious his query and response at User talk:Abog were not based on watch-listing your edits, but on watch-listing your talk page (and are irrelevant as far as your behavior is concerned). I will again caution you about adhering to WP:CIVILITY. You do a lot of good work here, but frankly your attitude sucks. Other editors are not the enemy. Please treat them more respectfully. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is becoming tiresome. I invite you to read this comment, where Wallie chooses to interject himself and carry on his dispute. Pay particular attention to the last sentence, as regards your 'perfectly polite' goes--or is 'some people call it vandalism' your idea of 'perfectly polite', not to mention 'he doesn't actually contribute anything' and his bad-faith accusations of 'tactics' I am 'deploying'?
- I have not chosen to carry on any dispute, he has. I have not gone canvassing for allies in unrelated areas, he has. I suggest that you make note of that whenever he comes running to you for help. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is becoming tiresome. I have read his comment (which was about you, not to you - I still maintain he's been polite to you) and I've warned him about it, but the topic here is you not Wallie. My impression is he is actually trying to start over with you and you are totally unwilling to let him. Like I told him, it's not the case that you're right and he's wrong or vice versa - at this point, you're both wrong and no one's going to try to decide who's "more" wrong. You're perhaps past the point of assuming good faith on his behalf, but don't assume bad faith. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of the president elect as the nominator has withdrawn from the AfD. While this does not always warrant a closure of the AfD, the article in question (United States Office of the President-Elect) has substantially changed in such a way that a closure is warranted in my opinion. If you wish, you can renominate the page for AfD, but the concerns would surely have to be different. Thanks. DARTH PANDAduel 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
2008
[edit]Please use the talk page and try to help come to a reasonable consensus. Two on one does not make a consensus. Neither does picking on one incident. Coming to a compromise, however, and establishing standards for conclusion for like events is a consenus, and that has not been achieved yet. I have proposed we include only those school shootings in which 5 or more people are killed. I would appreciate if you would participate in this discussion instead of engaging in an edit war. Thank you. Abog (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- May I remind you that you and FFMG are also engaging in edit warring and the fact that you are deleting notable, well-sourced content and failing to use the talk page before reverting one's edits constitutes edit warring and isn't healthy for Wikipedia. Abog (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the status quo was the NIU shooting being in place. The ones who are trying to change it are all of you by removing it. The NIU shooting was listed as an entry for many many months without incident and was removed a few months ago as payback for me stirring the pot and arguing over the inclusion of an image. So you guys are in the wrong for trying to remove it. Also, it would be nice if you would participate in the discussion and come to a reasonable and fair compromise when it comes to school shootings as a whole, instead of picking on this one incident. Reverting but failing to discuss on the article's talk page reflects poorly on your behalf. Abog (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
1897
[edit]I see above that other users are having a little trouble with your actions, viz. edit-warring and possibly aggressive responses. I don't wish to judge without knowledge of those histories, but I must ask you not to over-react and accuse in your edit summaries to me, especially when I reverted my own action to restore the year-links. If I got it wrong (I attempted not to), you need only to point this out politely. I'm finding you just as rude and arrogant as last time, when you spattered aggressive comments on my talk page.
I don't want to have conflict with you and intended no offence, so please take a less aggressive approach. You'll find that it pays off, even with people who may do things differently.
The en dashes are required by the MoS when used as interrupters in lists. They look much better on the page, and are easier to read, than the previous hyphens. En dashes are also required in ranges, whether months or years. Here, they all need to be unspaced. Please do not revert these changes. Tony (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- From the look of all of these complaints here, you are the one on a crusade. Take it elsewhere yourself—preferably off wiki. Tony (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Quick question
[edit]Why did you revert my edit for 2040s? I did'nt do anything wrong.
December 5: Day of the Ninja
[edit]Why did you revert my addition of Day of the Ninja to December 5? International Talk Like a Pirate Day was allowed to be added to September 19? SLeepdepD (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Heya!
[edit]Hey! Seen ya reverted my edit on Deaths on December 7. I didn't much know what to put for an article for Dennis Yost, but I did create the redirect page. Feel free to tinker with that if you can field some info. Hemingray (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at WT:DAYS
[edit]Hi - Can you please add your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Introduction revisited, or would you mind if I copy your post about this from Talk:August 15? If I copy your post I'll likely snip the "peculiar obsession" bit (which is exactly the kind of comment I've asked you not to make - do you not recognize that this is clearly inflammatory?). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mate
[edit]About you blocking my edit, Why did you block it, Felix is a respected youth sportsman in my country, please be more diligent next time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qulix rules (talk • contribs) 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of shipwrecks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Well, you actually violated 3RR, but nobody warned you so I let it go. But now you know. If you have a persistent IP-editor trying to insert unsourced material all the time, ask for help. Maybe this page needs to be semi-protected for a while. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, the situation is more complex. I could have just taken the rules as they are and blocked you for 24 hours for violation of 3RR, but I didn't, exactly because things are more complex. There might be much more going on, no doubt, most of the time there is, but at the same time, that is not a freeride on 3RR or anything else. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
While I have retired, your steady attempts at still causing trouble have not gone unnoticed as shown in a comment here on wikipedia you made when I had already retired, as shown here [5]. Also, someone has just happened to create a vicious page who just happens to have your same username about myself off-site [6] with incivil comments about myself as well as the administrator above. CalendarWatcher, those words really hurt my feelings, like seriously, hurt my feelings. I'd just like to retire in peace and end whatever feud this is you're trying to engage in with me. =( Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
British
[edit]Hi. The British Grove studios was removed. Yes, is a commercial studio. But there is a list of some other 50 commercial studios in UK. Why are they not removed?
Apologies
[edit]My apologies, It seems that I have fallen for a cleaver set up trap of Cheers Dude who was a sock from a well-known sockpuppeteer. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
65.31.103.28
[edit]Beware of feeding the squirrels too much. Like I should talk. :) I've asked the blocking admin to wipe the guy's page and protect it, but he just got back from some time off, so he might have more pressing matters. One thing the guy's rant proves, in case we didn't know already - answers.com is not a reliable source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- On the plus side, at least he didn't call any of us "honey": [7] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like someone has taken care of it now. He can rant to himself on that other website all he wants to... like shouting in a padded, soundproof cell. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Except that a second admin reduced the page protection to just 6 hours. I don't know what's up with that. But if he comes back, we can ask for an extension. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like someone has taken care of it now. He can rant to himself on that other website all he wants to... like shouting in a padded, soundproof cell. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Odyssey Con
[edit]Hi. I happened to randomly come across another Sci Fi conference that appears to be non-notable and nominated it for deletion. Unlike the deletion discussion for MatsuriCon, this one was contested immediately. I don't know if you have a view on this conference, or if if you find the logic for the keep !vote persuasive, but you may wish to add your views to the AfD. Rgds, Bongomatic 03:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Your Homophobic Remark of yesterday
[edit]Yesterday you decided to use the word "bugger" to refer to me. In US english that word has only perjorative meaning. I have decided not to officially complain because I like to settle things without officially complaining. The word has only one meaning here, it means sodomoite. Your use of in in relation to me is as offensive to me as I know, that the use of the word "limey" is to the British. Knowing that I no longer use it. Yet the first british person I used the word in front of understood that I did not know that. So I will understand that you did not realize about the word bugger and forgive you because that is the kind of person I am.
Even Admin's have to obey these rules and the precidents they set by their actions. If the mere preceptions of insults get people banned (without consideration of what was meant by the writer). Then what would my perception of homophobia/transphobia gotten you?--Hfarmer (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of One-hit wonders of Alternative Guises in the UK
[edit]I have added my part here. To be honest I think you're being totally unreasonable as the bit explains. --Cexycy (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Admin Noticeboard
[edit]your recent comment to HFarmer was in an already closed section. Further, she's not going to listen to you, as you already pretty much said. ThuranX (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)