User talk:A Nobody/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:A Nobody. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Deletion of AfD templates
If you will refrain from deleting AfD templates in the future, then there should be no further problems.--Sloane (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, if an admin closes an AfD and forgets to remove the templates after closing, it is beyond acceptable for any editor to remove templates for closed discussions. It is common good faith practice to do that as say Blanchard did here. Please do not invent issues. Also, please remember to use edit summaries. Thanks. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to A Nobody, for his behind the scenes work on Retro Duo, saving the article from deletion. A Nobody work has greatly strengthened the project, and he truly is a valuable asset to wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Polite notice
Please stop badgering everyone who !votes to "delete" at this AfD, it's considered bad Wikiquette. The !voters should have already looked over the discussion and noted your points. Shoving your opinion down their throats after they already !voted isn't going to change their minds, only infuriate them. ThemFromSpace 18:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unless if you left the same message for the nominator of the article, then no, because it is a discussion, and not a vote and such inaccurate comments need to be challenged. Good faith and open-minded editors will change their minds. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can I personally thank you for your persuasive persistence over this AfD. It's completely party pri to criticise you when others who want it deleted keep on making their arguments heard in repeated comments. You helped change my mind completely--Moloch09 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are very welcome! Thank you for keeping an open-mind and treating it a discussion and note a vote. Have a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The "someone else did it, so I'm going to keep doing it, too" line is old and childish -- one of the things pointed out to you under your old ID. Your other account also received warnings/requests not to respond to/badget every (or a bunch) of dissenting views at AfD. Your troubling editing habits from your pre-RT"V" account continue to bubble up; please reign them in. --EEMIV (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:CIVILITY. As Molochi09 demonstrates above, open-minded editors are indeed persuaded by good faith arguments. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can I personally thank you for your persuasive persistence over this AfD. It's completely party pri to criticise you when others who want it deleted keep on making their arguments heard in repeated comments. You helped change my mind completely--Moloch09 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Smile
Your talk page is a battleground today, so here's a smile!
—S Marshall Talk/Cont has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Thanks, but it's not a battleground as far as I see it (I hate to compare disagreements on a website with a term that evokes what our relatives have experienced outside of cyberspace), maybe some heated or passioned discussion, but c'est la vie! :) I am confident that enough reasonable editors are out there that we can find a way to do something with these lists that works. Will we appease extremists? Perhaps not, but we don't have to after all. :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.
I'd like to that you for your review on me! :) I really appreciate it. Papercutbiology♫ (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia. I'm still learning how to do this, and mainly correcting small errors and adding references randomly. Nacho Insular (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
Re: Transwiki request
Done. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fantastic! :) Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done with the others, as well. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Cool; I'm basically going through various old fiction AfDs where someone called for a transwiki and seeing if that's possible as I figure if editors thought these articles worthwhile, there has to be a place for them somewhere. :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is a wonderful idea. Nice job A nobody. Ikip (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is a wonderful idea. Nice job A nobody. Ikip (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Cool; I'm basically going through various old fiction AfDs where someone called for a transwiki and seeing if that's possible as I figure if editors thought these articles worthwhile, there has to be a place for them somewhere. :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done with the others, as well. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Repetition of points in a deletion discussion
Could you stop doing this please? Continually repeating your points looks disruptive and looks like an attempt to ram your opinion down people's throats when they are perfectly capable of reading the discussion for themselves. Since you are a nice person, I'm sure you wouldn't want to give that impression. Seraphim♥ 16:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It seems necessary, because practically all the deletes are the same borderline copy and paste and false claims of "indiscriminate", which it is clearly not and has been debunked repeatedly in the discussion. As such, these need to be challenged and pointed out as such. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Really, they don't. If specious arguments are "clearly" "false" and "debunked," the closing admin. will see this and discount them. As you point out, such debunking has happened "repeatedly in the discussion"; continuing to beat the dead horse doesn't seem necessary. This is now three editors from one AfD, on top of a host of others from other AfDs pre-RTV, who're asking you to stop responding with the same points/rebuttals to such an overwhelming number of dissenting views at AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, they do, so that they are seen by the closing admin to have been refuted. And it's not surprising that those who disagree with the keep side of the discussion would single me out rather than say the nominator or some of the others on the delete side who have challenged practically every keep. I cannot take such requests seriously when they only focus on one individual and when they are coming from one side that has a clear bias, i.e. those wanting to delete who do not want to be refuted. This is nothing more than taking an ad hominem approach to squash a perceived opponent rather than trying to substantiate arguments in the discussion. I will not be bullied out of discussing. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It is your opinion that the claim that the list is indiscriminate is false. Try to respect the views of others who have a differing opinion. You seem to be guilty of precisely the same behaviour you just mentioned, practically copying and pasting your opinion. Please stop. Seraphim♥ 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It gets old and frustrating seeing repetitious comments that seem to ignore the whole actual discussion that refuted those misconceptions. Besides, in discussions, we challenge each other and I am sure most editors can handle being challenged here and there. I appreciate the suggestion in any event and hope that a similar message has been left for the nominator and anyone else who has responded to multiple editors in the discussion. Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Joy. You're employing the same argument to defend your behaviour: "I know what I'm doing wrong but you better have warned every one else otherwise my disruptive behaviour doesn't count". What is frustrating is having to tell you time and time again to stop being disruptive. The other people don't need your particular brand of "challenging" i.e. continual badgering. Assume good faith that people have read the discussion and try to understand that other people don't believe their argument has been refuted. If it was as clear as you seem to think, there would be no difference in opinion. Now, can I just get a comment from you saying that you won't continue to do this? Is a wider audience needed to judge whether your behaviour is disruptive? Seraphim♥ 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am not being disruptive and what I am doing is not wrong. It is remarkably disappointing that anyone would try to denigrate good faith efforts to reach a consensus as such, although it is not surprising that those of the different viewpoint would want to focus on squelching only the opinion of someone on the opposite side of the discussion while ignoring those who agree with them. Thus, if anything, ganging up on me is disruptive, because if it is only wrong in your eyes my challenging those who want to delete and it is not wrong for the nominator to challenge those who want to keep, then these accusations here are hypocritical and no editor should be expected to tolerate hypocritical comments. The truth is neither I nor the nominator should be prevented from challenging editors in a discussion. That is what a discussion is, an interaction among editors and sure some times comments are going to be repeated, but that's what we have in actual discussions. I have commented in two AfDs in the past couple of weeks, one to argue to keep and one to argue to delete. Funny, no one seems to mind when I argue to delete. The delete one closed as snow and so now my focus is only on the one that should and will be kept in a day or so anyway. And aside from those who rarely if never change from delete to keep, as Molochi shows above, my approach actually has convinced at least one participant to switch to Strong keep. So, okay to the few editors with a history with me who have been on the opposite side in practically every discussion we participated in want to misrepresent my edits in the same old fashion instead of trying to focus on actually discussing the value of the article, whereas others like Molochi actually do respond to the persistence in the intended manner, i.e. he open mindedly changed his stance accordingly. It may not work with everyone, but it has convinced at least one eidtor, which means that it can indeed have fortunate results. Please focus on the actual values of the articles in questions, rather than on the editors in the discussions. Finally, what is especially baffling here is that for the past how many edits I have made today, I have focused on totally unrelated stuff, i.e. writing up editor reviews and the like. Now obviously, my focus for today is on a totally unrelated area of Wikipedia, so it's like where is this coming from? Yesterday or whatever, okay, but the bulk of my edits today and those of the past hour plus have not even been to that discussion. Finally, if anyone replies specifically to me in that AfD, no one can reasonably expect to not reply to another's reply specifically to me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how to respond to such a screed. Seraphim♥ 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am not being disruptive and what I am doing is not wrong. It is remarkably disappointing that anyone would try to denigrate good faith efforts to reach a consensus as such, although it is not surprising that those of the different viewpoint would want to focus on squelching only the opinion of someone on the opposite side of the discussion while ignoring those who agree with them. Thus, if anything, ganging up on me is disruptive, because if it is only wrong in your eyes my challenging those who want to delete and it is not wrong for the nominator to challenge those who want to keep, then these accusations here are hypocritical and no editor should be expected to tolerate hypocritical comments. The truth is neither I nor the nominator should be prevented from challenging editors in a discussion. That is what a discussion is, an interaction among editors and sure some times comments are going to be repeated, but that's what we have in actual discussions. I have commented in two AfDs in the past couple of weeks, one to argue to keep and one to argue to delete. Funny, no one seems to mind when I argue to delete. The delete one closed as snow and so now my focus is only on the one that should and will be kept in a day or so anyway. And aside from those who rarely if never change from delete to keep, as Molochi shows above, my approach actually has convinced at least one participant to switch to Strong keep. So, okay to the few editors with a history with me who have been on the opposite side in practically every discussion we participated in want to misrepresent my edits in the same old fashion instead of trying to focus on actually discussing the value of the article, whereas others like Molochi actually do respond to the persistence in the intended manner, i.e. he open mindedly changed his stance accordingly. It may not work with everyone, but it has convinced at least one eidtor, which means that it can indeed have fortunate results. Please focus on the actual values of the articles in questions, rather than on the editors in the discussions. Finally, what is especially baffling here is that for the past how many edits I have made today, I have focused on totally unrelated stuff, i.e. writing up editor reviews and the like. Now obviously, my focus for today is on a totally unrelated area of Wikipedia, so it's like where is this coming from? Yesterday or whatever, okay, but the bulk of my edits today and those of the past hour plus have not even been to that discussion. Finally, if anyone replies specifically to me in that AfD, no one can reasonably expect to not reply to another's reply specifically to me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it makes you more receptive to this request to stop responding in such large quantities, I have left a similar request at Locke's page -- he's the only editors who has more edits to this discussion than you. --EEMIV (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is an interesting tool! Okay, since you left the comment on Locke's page too, that removes my concern of hypocrisy and as such, I will focus on other aspects of Wikipedia instead. I appreciate the effort to be fair by now contacting both of us and will only reply to those who reply directly to me in the AfD if I comment any further, which I really wasn't planning on anyway as I wanted to work on other stuff today. Take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Joy. You're employing the same argument to defend your behaviour: "I know what I'm doing wrong but you better have warned every one else otherwise my disruptive behaviour doesn't count". What is frustrating is having to tell you time and time again to stop being disruptive. The other people don't need your particular brand of "challenging" i.e. continual badgering. Assume good faith that people have read the discussion and try to understand that other people don't believe their argument has been refuted. If it was as clear as you seem to think, there would be no difference in opinion. Now, can I just get a comment from you saying that you won't continue to do this? Is a wider audience needed to judge whether your behaviour is disruptive? Seraphim♥ 17:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It gets old and frustrating seeing repetitious comments that seem to ignore the whole actual discussion that refuted those misconceptions. Besides, in discussions, we challenge each other and I am sure most editors can handle being challenged here and there. I appreciate the suggestion in any event and hope that a similar message has been left for the nominator and anyone else who has responded to multiple editors in the discussion. Sincerley, --A NobodyMy talk 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Really, they don't. If specious arguments are "clearly" "false" and "debunked," the closing admin. will see this and discount them. As you point out, such debunking has happened "repeatedly in the discussion"; continuing to beat the dead horse doesn't seem necessary. This is now three editors from one AfD, on top of a host of others from other AfDs pre-RTV, who're asking you to stop responding with the same points/rebuttals to such an overwhelming number of dissenting views at AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
AN/I
A report has been filed about your conduct at AN/I. The report can be found here. Seraphim♥ 17:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Review
Thanks a lot for the review. As for your comment about article rescue, I have never been too excellent at actual prose work, but I can certainly do the old dronery of finding refs/info and expanding. I'll certainly have a shot at doing some work on a few of the tagged articles today - and thanks for mentioning it, I was thinking about ARS a while back, but it would appear I never got around to it. Again, thanks. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 18:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome and keep up the good work! As far as I can tell you are a real asset to our project! :) Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- You flatter me with your words, I can do nothing but reciprocate them towards yourself. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 19:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've tried doing some work on this, anything else you would suggest I looked at to improve it? — neuro(talk)(review) 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, good job, as it survived the AfD! Bravo! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I've tried doing some work on this, anything else you would suggest I looked at to improve it? — neuro(talk)(review) 20:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- You flatter me with your words, I can do nothing but reciprocate them towards yourself. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 19:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Transwiki Request
The page in question was userfied to: User:Tlogmer/List of films by gory death scene. I have no idea how to do a legal transwiki off of Wikimedia sites, nor do I think doing so is adviseable. WilyD 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Editor Review
Just thought I'd drop by a quick note, in your editor review you noticed, from my edit history, that I had at one point vandalised. I would like to question though that surly that would be overlooked anyway... After all I no longer vandalise and have a barnstar to say well done for stopping vandalising. Just thought I'd get your thoughts on that? Mczack26 SpeakToMe! 15:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello! As I wrote at your review, I think it is wonderful that you earned a resilient barnstar for turning around! Kudos! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Transwiki request
Sorry, I don't know anything about transwikiing. You'll need to ask someone who does. Ty 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, will do. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't be intimidated
I got to thinking, hmmm...I wonder how many edits other editors have on this page.
I don't see these same editors adding warning to the nominator for deletion, who actually is the editor who has the most edits on the page (40 as opposed to your 36):
- Locke9k 40 2 5.0% 2009-03-19 15:06 2009-03-21 15:49 74:56 m
- A Nobody 36 0 0.0% 2009-03-20 17:58 2009-03-22 15:21 77:46 m
I would just ignore such "disruptive" "badgering". Ikip (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will do. My mother just made lunch/dinner, so ta ta for now! :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Look harder, Ikip: I put a request on the nominator's/Locke9k's page asking him to tone down, too, and A Nobody above seemed receptive to this mutual request. --EEMIV (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies then EEMIV, thanks for the message. Striking the message, I appreciate your balance. Ikip (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Look harder, Ikip: I put a request on the nominator's/Locke9k's page asking him to tone down, too, and A Nobody above seemed receptive to this mutual request. --EEMIV (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Smile!
Nz26 | Talk | Contribs has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for reviewing me, And signing my guestbook. Nz26 | Talk | Contribs 04:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- My pleasure! :) Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy A Nobody's Day!
 |
A Nobody has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, |
Everywhere I see you engaging in commentary, I see that your comments provoke thought and are very helpful. I have also seen your kindness (likely as part of WP:KC) and quality article work. Judging from your block log, you appear to be a former problem editor who reformed and became an excellent editor; reform from bad to good is a trait I think very highly of in Wikipedians. You are a model Wikipedian, and I'm sure that you would make a fine admin. So, I hereby declare that March 25, 2009, is your day! :D →Dyl@n620 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind and touching comments. You have truly brightened my day! Thank you so much! I wish you all the best! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Bubble tea!
-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!
Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
- Thanks! Much appreciated as well! :) Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| I award you this barnstar for your continued efforts to protect and improve wikipedia. Some see that Wiki is completed and strive to cleanup articles to meet ever-changing guideline, others understand that wiki as an unfinished and ever-growing project that will never be finished. Some use guideline as a bludgeon and others use it as a scalpel. Proper use of the provided tools is always to be encouraged. Enthusiasm and love of Wiki is an attribute to be cherished. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC) |
- Is this a barnstar or some kind of haiku / word puzzle? :) Congrats Nobody. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are most welcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
|
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
|
- Thank you! Anyway, I like to bring List of catgirls, List of common misconceptions, and List of fictional characters by IQ all up to featured list status and would always appreciate any help! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly, List of fictional characters by IQ got the AfD axe. Kingturtle (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- It can always be improved in userspace and moved back to mainspace eventually. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly, List of fictional characters by IQ got the AfD axe. Kingturtle (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hitman
'tis done jimfbleak (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome
Hello, 70.108.118.234, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --A Nobody<asup>My talk 06:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
ANobody: R u welcoming me bc u care or 2 get your edit count up? ThankYou. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am a member of Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I Need Your Opinion
Hey A,
I need your opinion here. A week or so ago, an administrator called me a vandal for a content dispute about content that I almost completely forgot about. He won't apologize for his accusation, I don't want to, but I think I have to file an RFC to address the issue: if I allow this bully to call me a vandal for a disagreement, then I don't see how it's different than letting others think he's right.
See? This is why I continue to think you'd be a great administrator. You're nice, you're level headed, and you make this place easier to deal with. Spinach Monster (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I said this in frustration. I also forgot that you didn't want to hear about the "You'd Be A Great Admin" stuff too. I still think you're a great guy, though, so please don't forget! Spinach Monster (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's okay and thank you for the kind words; I hope everything else is going okay! Anyway, the key is to 1) not be bullied, but 2) always remain calm and civil; if your opponent is open-minded he or she will responded in a conciliatory manner and if not then let it be your opponent who steps out of bounds and is observed as such by neutral observsers. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll check it out. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Did You Know problem
Hello! Your submission of List of fictional turtles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I have added the internal link. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just reverted you there; nothing personal, I reverted myself earlier for the same thing. The Webster's reference that you (and I) added cites this article as its source, so it is of no value. pablohablo. 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, But So Long
Considering that now I can't get a vote from even you on your RFA standards, this account serves no purpose. Don't worry, this isn't my first account, and it won't be my last. Hell, I have other ones out there right now. I wasn't using them thinking that things might have changed, but they haven't: once you get in power, you can say 2+2=5 and get away with it if you're Jimbo Wales or one of his minions. Don't worry, i've been playing this game for awhile now, i've gotten used to going from account to account, checking IPs and editing styles. Someday soon, you'll be talking to the person behind this account again in one or more accounts elsewhere. The assholes aren't in charge, we are. They can't stop me, they haven't yet.
P.S -- If you could, please put up a box or something saying this account has left Wikipedia. Spinach Monster (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- What makes you think you wouldn't get a vote from me per my RfA standards? Given how nice you have been to me that would supercede the one block. I've been blocked before and my standards are not written in stone. But, anyway, I'll post the retirement template on your userspace. Take care and don't let a volunteer project cause you to lose too much sleep! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)