TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I noticed your comment here.. Decided that replying in that thread would be foolish, as it's a huge drama-fest and this issue is not directly related to that issue. But, I think you are way off base here. I'd wager that most admins have policies they don't care about enforcing. And since we're all volunteers, I don't think it's very reasonable to demand a particular level of service. If there's a job that needs done, it's OK if a bunch of people won't touch it. There's another bunch of people who will. Friday(talk)14:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and thank you for your feedback. We seem to disagree here and I am not interested in arguing the point and this is not an attempt to change your opinion, just to clarify mine. I understand your position and can certainly see the merits therein (so must others as it is our current methodology) but I do feel (since the community has seen fit to trust them with the broom) that a certain level of service is expected from the admin corps. We are all volunteers to be sure but taking on the mantle of adminship is a step beyond voluntarily editing the encyclopedia and comes with some responsibilities. This reminds me of the frustration I see expressed every so often at AiV; if an admin is unwilling to intervene with vandals, they should stay away from the vandalism intervention board. Sorry for the rant, this is just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Smosh. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smosh (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buddy. I know you appreciated my work on the LSU page, but go here and nominate for LSU to be a collaboration article and a bunch of other people will pitch in
I have nominated Degrassi: The Next Generation for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 117Avenue (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you could please explain to me the reason why you removed the sources for the names and dates of release of the GI Joe Collected editions in this edit [4]? Those references were provided so the table would be properly referenced/sourced and they were most certainly not a linkspam. Now with their removal the table is left totaly unsourced/unreferenced. I will await your response for the removal of the sources and, if you still have a problem with it, a compromise solution to our problem. Also, I took offense at you calling me a pimping spammy and would remind you of Wikipedias rule on civility. Thank you. Plastelin (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were removed because they were links to a comic book store selling those particular issues. Please see Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming, and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. The names and release dates are quite easily sourced by referencing the masthead of the publications themselves; there is no need to include external links to a particular retailer's inventory (there is also no reason to include external links in the article body at all, that is what the external links/sources/references sections are for). Sorry you got upset by an edit summary. L0b0t (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Bushmaster Firearms International".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting opening comments from participants. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, L0b0t. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello L0b0t! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk20:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
