User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2008/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TreasuryTag. 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. |
Beat me to it
You just beat me to reporting our friend to 3RR! Keep up the good work!--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Always a pleasure... —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
ACC Toolserver tool
Heya, I noticed a request for access to the ACC toolserver tool, from you (or someone claiming to be you), just wanted to confirm, that it was actually you :) SQLQuery me! 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
IMDb
Hello! To respond to your comments: "I can go and put anything false on their now, and their checks aren't good enough to spot it; thus it's essentially a self-published source, people putting info online without citing where they got it from." Not to be rude, but that is 100% incorrect. You cannot post anything on the IMDb without first having the input cleared by IMDb staff. Information takes a week to 10 days to go online -- unlike Wikipedia, where a mouse click can put the most ridiculous nonsense online immediately. There is an editorial review staff at IMDb, whereas none exists on WP. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The editorial review on IMDb is to prevent anything blatantly inappropriate from ending up there. You can pretty much make up any "fact" you want, as long as it sounds remotely plausible and submit it to an IMDb trivia section, bio summary, or probably even a quote section. Editors might review submissions before they appear on the page but that doesn't mean they actually do any fact-checking. I've requested quite a few removals myself from some of those pages when I came across things that were obviously made up, and I got them removed, too. And, comparing IMDb to Wikipedia in terms of free editability/validity as a source, that's inconsequential, as Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a valid source. Just because IMDb filters its content a bit and we don't doesn't make them a valid source for us. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have been directed to this source: WP:CIMDB -- apparently, there is a lot of confusion on the matter. Thanks for the fine response. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I made my comment assuming for some reason that you were already familiar with the IMDb situation here. I would've worded that more gently otherwise. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not a problem. IMDb actually has a very tough policy on the submission of listings for new films -- you have to jump through certain hoops (qualifying festivals, commercial release, recognized distributors, etc.) before you can get listed. While people are welcome to contribute information, I never saw it as self-publishing in the traditional DIY sense. But thanks, again, for your cogent input. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As requested ["Piano wire" comment]
Your posts to the noticeboards are becoming increasingly disruptive, with calls for punishments to be handed out and attempts to throw petrol on the various fires that spring up. For instance punishment call petrol/personal attack punishment call petrol punishment call petrol... shall I go on? Each time you do this, expect to be called on it - if not by me then by others. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 10:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how giving my reasoned opinion on a matter (an opinion shared by a lot of other users) can possibly be disruptive; the board is for discussion, and I was there to help form a consensus - my view that Beta should remain indef-blocked was supported by some admins too.
- To accuse me of intentionally firing up disputes is a personal attack as not assuming good faith, and I consider that picking on me in your posts, by name, not only served no purpose in the discussion but is also harassment, as there are other users who posted almost identical material as I did.
- And it's not a personal attack to call a nasty user nasty. Beta is rude, uncommunicative, and telling another user to "grow a brain" constitues nasty in my book. I look forward to reading your reply. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm... I looked through those diffs and I can't say I see anything at all inappropriate about them. Maybe they show some disagreement with the majority, but that can't be called a disruption. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)But you're not giving your "reasoned" opinion, and I'm startled that you can't see where the problem with your continued calls for harder, longer blocks lies. It's not helping form a consensus by calling for people to be punished for stuff. We don't punish - that's one of the major rules here. By continually doing it, plus the petrol-throwing, you appear to intentionally trying to create or prolong drama. Your insistence that calling you on such bad behaviour is "picking on you" shows how little you grasp that you are doing wrong. And if Beta was nasty (a judgement I'm not making here either way), this is no reason at all to start calling him (or anyone else) names, even if his attack was on you (which it wasn't, thus providing more evidence of petrol throwing). Please stop with these types of contribution - take a deep breath before clicking save, ask yourself what you hope to achieve by such posts and whether this will achieve it and try to assume good faith of others rather than cloaking your own action in it and not applying yourself. If you don't, you're going to be looking down the wrong end of an RfC. BTW, your message to me, dripping with AGF, was received whilst I was typing this. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 10:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah he's calling for punishment, and yeah maybe he's wrong. So tell him he's wrong at the main discussion. You have conflicting opinions, what else is new. I don't see any reason this needed to brought up on his talk page as if it's some kind of warning. Take a deep breath and think before you hand out these threats, Redvers. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- "...wrong end of an RfC", indeed. What a disgusting thing to say. It's interesting that you liken RfC to some type of weapon. If anyone's behavior here needs to be discussed, it sure isn't TreasuryTag's. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)But you're not giving your "reasoned" opinion, and I'm startled that you can't see where the problem with your continued calls for harder, longer blocks lies. It's not helping form a consensus by calling for people to be punished for stuff. We don't punish - that's one of the major rules here. By continually doing it, plus the petrol-throwing, you appear to intentionally trying to create or prolong drama. Your insistence that calling you on such bad behaviour is "picking on you" shows how little you grasp that you are doing wrong. And if Beta was nasty (a judgement I'm not making here either way), this is no reason at all to start calling him (or anyone else) names, even if his attack was on you (which it wasn't, thus providing more evidence of petrol throwing). Please stop with these types of contribution - take a deep breath before clicking save, ask yourself what you hope to achieve by such posts and whether this will achieve it and try to assume good faith of others rather than cloaking your own action in it and not applying yourself. If you don't, you're going to be looking down the wrong end of an RfC. BTW, your message to me, dripping with AGF, was received whilst I was typing this. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 10:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm... I looked through those diffs and I can't say I see anything at all inappropriate about them. Maybe they show some disagreement with the majority, but that can't be called a disruption. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not dignifying Redvers' material with a reply.
- Thanks, Equazcion! —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine: but I will continue to call you on your behaviour if it continues, and continue to reserve the right to take it RfC if it doesn't change. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fine, you do that. If you consider exercising my reasonable and non-minority opinion disruptive, and accuse me of intentionally causing disruption, then you will become a laughing-stock. And if you continue harassing me, I will call you to RfC and I'm sure Equacion will be happy to join me! —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I reserve the same right with regard to you, Redvers. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- For the record TT, your signature is quite original and visually appealing. I can't understand why anyone would have a problem with it! --Dragon695 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ta very much - it goes well with this green background, I always think :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 21:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- In the future you might like to notify people of ANI threads about them - regardless of whether they have the page watchlisted, as the page is edited every few minutes and it would be quite easy to miss a thread in their name. naerii - talk 21:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I direct you to the last words of my post in the thread, and to the fact that notification is anyway optional. —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Courtesy is never optional. Amongst people with manners, at least. naerii - talk 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I direct you to the last words of my post in the thread, in which I clearly explained my reasons for not doing so. Since it was optional anyway, it is not a matter you can complain about with justification. Furthermore, I have reason to believe that Redvers would be uninterested in such a notification (yours was ignored), probably wiping it if he came from me, with a snarky edit summary - as he did when I left {{talkback}} on his page the other day.
- No further replies to this will be read; it's optional, if you get a kick out of presuming that I have no manners then feel free, I'm still way within policy and courtesy regardless of your personal opinion! —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Courtesy is never optional. Amongst people with manners, at least. naerii - talk 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I direct you to the last words of my post in the thread, and to the fact that notification is anyway optional. —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Dummy comment to fix archiving. —TreasuryTag—t—c 22:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Sig
Seriously, your signature is nicely done, but absurdly long in code:
<small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">'''[[User:TreasuryTag|TreasuryTag]]'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">'''[[User talk:TreasuryTag|t]]'''</small>—<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">'''[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|c]]'''</small></small>
just to produce:
And that's not including the time and date. Maybe you'd want to adjust it so editing near you isn't as frustrating? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The software is supposed to stop signature over 255 characters in length - yours in 450 characters so please cut it down to less than 255. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi; when I initially introduced my signature (which incidentally looks rather trendy...) in March, I had complaints which were resolved by a reduction in length. Its current form was endorsed by Equazcion (talk · contribs), WBOSITG (talk · contribs) and Theresa knott (talk · contribs) {1, 2}. I consider those endorsements appropriate for purposes, note also that in the months since then I have had I think only one other complaint about it, and the user was placated when I demonstrated that others were happy with it.
If you still aren't content, let me know and we can discuss further courses of action. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The thing is, it's hard to work with on noticeboards that are already long already. It adds a lot of uneeded mark up and it's very distracting. Are you good with coding yourself, or would you let me speak to a couple of coding experts who might be able to create you a better sig? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm viable with coding myself (for "coding" read "adapting code copied from others"!), but would be happy to seek assistance to see if the existing graphic can be created with fewer characters; genuinely, I understand your point, but would point out that I do a lot of noticeboard editing and receive very few complaints - my stats are above :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can't read a thing in the editing window! ;-) The "stats" above are nice, but that's not what I'm requesting. I agree with TKnott that the sig looks nice and slick. My problem is with the length of coding. It makes it very difficult to follow the editing when half the page is sig coding. Since we should be trying to build an encyclopedia, and not trying to build the awesomest sig, I can't see why you would have an issue altering it slightly. What about something more like:
- I'm viable with coding myself (for "coding" read "adapting code copied from others"!), but would be happy to seek assistance to see if the existing graphic can be created with fewer characters; genuinely, I understand your point, but would point out that I do a lot of noticeboard editing and receive very few complaints - my stats are above :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Granted, it doesn't have the different boxes, but it's about 200 characters shorter than your current sig:
- <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">'''[[User:TreasuryTag|TreasuryTag]]'''—'''[[User talk:TreasuryTag|t]]'''—'''[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|c]]'''</small></small>
- Mahalo, TT. --Ali'i 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it was Theresa (and the other two listed) who considered it appropriately-coded. The diff I gave was someone commenting how unutterably cool it looked; do you have a real response to the points they rasied in the archives I listed? —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You might be best to change the design completely - you can still have something that looks as cool, but doesn't have to much mark up. It just makes commenting difficult on the already convoluted admin noticeboards. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it is "properly coded" inasmuch as it is formatted correctly and outputs a working signature. No one is disputing that. However, once subst'ed it is too long to be useful and helpful for most noticeboards, etc. --Ali'i 15:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed - while it looks good, the excessive amount of code makes it very difficult to read comments you've added. --Ckatzchatspy 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it was Theresa (and the other two listed) who considered it appropriately-coded. The diff I gave was someone commenting how unutterably cool it looked; do you have a real response to the points they rasied in the archives I listed? —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mahalo, TT. --Ali'i 15:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that I share these concerns - I've a very large monitor, but your sig is still a major block of text on any page source I load, and does seem to violate the policy on sigs: [1]. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion [of talk-page comments]
You deleted my comment at Talk:The_Unicorn_and_the_Wasp as "general discussion". It wasn't. Discussing whether other episodes between The Unicorn and the Wasp and The Gunfighters were comic is relevant not just to the topic but to the article, specifically the latter's assertion that The Unicorn and the Wasp was the first comic episode of Doctor Who since The Gunfighters. Also, WP:TALK says, "Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission."
Sorry if I sound like I'm whinging - I don't intend to. Happy editing. Ou tis (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with this - I just looked at the talk page, and your reverts of "general discussion" there have been a bit overzealous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am surprised :-) I consider giving personal opinion on the comedic value of an episode irrelevant to whether the production team intended it to have comedic value. And you could always un-watchlist my talkpage if you wanted to... —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- My mistake - the one I undid was, in fact, not the one I meant to - [2] and [3] are the two that specifically caught my eye as excessive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that both were not great comments. But both seemed to me intended to improve the article or to advance discussion about it. And I think that good faith attempts have to be the threshhold for removing comments - otherwise it becomes too much about editors' personal opinions on what's helpful. (For instance, Ou Tis explains the City of Death comment persuasively above). Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps - but I think that's an unhelpfully high bar to set. Removing forum comments should be done rarely. Remember that WP:FORUM does not, in and of itself, advocate removal of comments - so you're already pushing the limits of what policy endorses when you do that. Given that, I think it's important to be careful in removing comments and remove only those (if any) that are clearly intending to use Wikipedia as a discussion forum - not good faith but unhelpful attempts to contribute usefully. To do otherwise seems to me disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:TALK also has something to say on the subject, of course :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- It also doesn't support removing comments except on your own talk page. (It does say not to strike them through, from which it probably follows that you shouldn't remove them either.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Irrelevant comments are subject to removal". Seems clear to me. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the quote is "irrelevant discussions," which is different, and suggests you should remove threads that become problematic, not lone comments you don't think are helpful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Irrelevant comments are subject to removal". Seems clear to me. —TreasuryTag—t—c 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- It also doesn't support removing comments except on your own talk page. (It does say not to strike them through, from which it probably follows that you shouldn't remove them either.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- WP:TALK also has something to say on the subject, of course :-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps - but I think that's an unhelpfully high bar to set. Removing forum comments should be done rarely. Remember that WP:FORUM does not, in and of itself, advocate removal of comments - so you're already pushing the limits of what policy endorses when you do that. Given that, I think it's important to be careful in removing comments and remove only those (if any) that are clearly intending to use Wikipedia as a discussion forum - not good faith but unhelpful attempts to contribute usefully. To do otherwise seems to me disruptive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that both were not great comments. But both seemed to me intended to improve the article or to advance discussion about it. And I think that good faith attempts have to be the threshhold for removing comments - otherwise it becomes too much about editors' personal opinions on what's helpful. (For instance, Ou Tis explains the City of Death comment persuasively above). Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- My mistake - the one I undid was, in fact, not the one I meant to - [2] and [3] are the two that specifically caught my eye as excessive. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am surprised :-) I consider giving personal opinion on the comedic value of an episode irrelevant to whether the production team intended it to have comedic value. And you could always un-watchlist my talkpage if you wanted to... —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Doctor Who Photos
Yeah, good point! I've deleted the "Doctor's Daughter" references now, hehehe! Blaine Coughlan (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you [Doctor Who trailer link]
Thanks for the link to the new trailer, it's all very exciting! Although I probably shouldn't have asked, it wasn't really related to building the encyclopaedia! So when are you going to run for adminship? I've been waiting for a while for your name to pop up there now! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was, you had to check out the truth of the rumours being added to the article ;-) —TreasuryTag—t—c 13:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
DW images
Can you stop uploading images before the episode airs? I'm not endorsing Matthew, but it's a bit annoying seeing the same debate every single week, even after I've exhausted by technical capacity to stop the debates. Sceptre (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- To be fair...
- If Matt is in the wrong then there's no reason just to pander to him.
- To be fair... you didn't seek consensus to make that absurd technical change, and it's really not a valid reason.
- If an image meets the NFCC, which I felt those did, then there's no reason not to add it - annoying as Matthew's debates and one-word edit-summaries may be. —TreasuryTag—t | c 14:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not condoning Matt, I want these silly rehashed debatges to stop. Sceptre (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a reasonable request, Will. You don't stop reporting a vandal to AIV just because he complains strenuously and annoys you. I want the debates to stop but there's no reason to let articles suffer just because Matthew's too quick with the "delete" button. —TreasuryTag—t | c 14:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection.
Lol, sorry... Fixed. · AndonicO Engage. 17:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully the last time. ;) · AndonicO Engage. 18:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Last of the Time Lords reversion
Hello,
I was wondering if you could explain your reversion of my edit to Last of the Time Lords. I made reference to the reset button technique, of which this episode was a fairly clear example. If such an observation can appear in Father's Day (Doctor Who), then it stands to reason that the same observation can be made in this article without constituting original research. Do you disagree? -Juansmith (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. If there is not a reliable source listed properly, then it constitutes original research. Sorry - I think the policy can be a bit over-strict too! —TreasuryTag—t—c 07:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The following line appears in Father's Day (Doctor Who):
- This is also the first time that Doctor Who has explicitly used the reset button technique. In Pyramids of Mars and Day of the Daleks possible futures were erased, but unlike this episode, the actual events of the serials were left intact. However, in this story, despite the reset, history still changed in some small ways. Pete now died in front of the church (a few hours later than previously); an unidentified woman (Rose) was with Pete when he died; Pete stepped in front of the car instead of it accidentally running him down; and the driver stayed behind rather than it being a hit-and-run. In Carnival of Monsters the S.S. Bernice had originally vanished in 1926 and at the end of the story was seemingly restored to its proper place, but there was no acknowledgement of any alteration of history.
- By the standard you're using, this passage constitutes original research to a far greater extent than what I wrote in the article in question. My line was analogous to saying "This is the _th episode of the new series that has taken place on Earth". If I were making some kind of observation about subtext or analysis of the story, I would agree that this constitutes original research. But this is a fact - plain, simple, and easily verifiable (albeit necessarily from multiple sources). Any thoughts? -Juansmith (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OSE. The article you listed above is also out of line with policy, and I'm just about to deal with it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Given that WP:OSE pertains to entire articles, it may behoove you to read WP:BASH as well. If you think it is necessary to remove all references to the reset button technique because you believe they constitute original research, it raises the question of why the given article should even exist, since it also makes vague reference to a multitude of sources (indeed, this concern has been tagged within the article itself). While I think the passage I quoted above is excessive and does constitute original research, a simple observation that the episode is an example of the reset button technique would not be. It's no different from a link in the "See Also" section at the bottom of an article. (which I would accept in lieu of the trivia line). I don't think it's appropriate to remove all reference to the technique from the article. I've updated Last of the Time Lords accordingly. Please comment if you have anything further to say on the matter. -Juansmith (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OSE. The article you listed above is also out of line with policy, and I'm just about to deal with it. —TreasuryTag—t—c 12:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Instead of just putting it up for deletion, Why couldn't you assist WikiProject Fancruft? Please Assume Agood Faith. As Well, I am sorry if I commited some violation of WP:OWN. I dearly apologise. Obviosly I cannot make constructive edits, can I? I am considering Leaving, because obviosly I am not wanted here. I am actually trying to help. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 12:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not planning to discuss this. Your views are at odds with the community's; let that be an end of it. —TreasuryTag—t | c 12:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that you also have mail = )--Cameron (T|C) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's odd. I have resent it now, you can have another look. = )--Cameron (T|C) 14:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I shall look forward to it! --Cameron (T|C) 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Journey's End
I am well aware of where I stand vis-a-vis the 3RR, but thank you for your kind concern. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Rfa
Your rfa can be found here! It is not 'live' on the Rfa page yet until you have had time to answer questions 1 - 3. It's not very grand compared to some other ones but it is my first nomination! = ) Regards, --Cameron (T|C) 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note to others: this is obviously the result of an email conversation. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 15:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem! :) Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wanted to let you know that I am supporting your RfA. I hope you are successful in this endeavour. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had noticed ;-) Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have delisted your RfA as it was at 24 opposes already and most people were voting "per x". It was unlikely to get any additional useful commentary. I'd give you my stock message I give to SNOWed people but I'm sure you know it all already - good luck in your future and in any additional RfAs. naerii - talk 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- TT: please be aware that is not uncommon for sincere and talented people to be denied appreciation when they first present themselves. Be patient and push forward -- I have faith in you! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with what has been said above. Keep a clean civility record for the next 4 months and then retry. That way noone can oppose due to civility issued which really was the only reason people opposed.
- TT: please be aware that is not uncommon for sincere and talented people to be denied appreciation when they first present themselves. Be patient and push forward -- I have faith in you! Ecoleetage (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have delisted your RfA as it was at 24 opposes already and most people were voting "per x". It was unlikely to get any additional useful commentary. I'd give you my stock message I give to SNOWed people but I'm sure you know it all already - good luck in your future and in any additional RfAs. naerii - talk 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- PS: You needn't be an administrator to be a great Wikipedian = ). Best wishes, --Cameron (T|C) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Harriet Jones return
Hi - in regard to your revert ([4]) can I just point out that the CBBC article does not state that she is in that episode. 86.154.185.86 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)