Jump to content

User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Jul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamish and Dougal

Any more personal attacks like this and you'll be going to WP:ANI. I believe your decision to take this article to AFD was unjustified and per WP:BEFORE could have been avoided by editing, and I pointed this out in the discussion. Get over it.--Michig (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a personal attack and the AFD was correct, I've seen the article and there are no sources. If you want it to stay try to improve the article--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Calling my comments 'crap' and accusing me of 'hypocrisy' is a personal attack. It certainly isn't a comment on the article in question, and really doesn't help the discussion.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you think that repeatedly quoting WP:BEFORE, but not doing anything to improve the article yourself, helped the discussion? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It was in no way a personal attack, Michig. You can point at WP:BEFORE all you like, but if you have a moment, please answer this question: why have you not improved the article in the many, many hours since you claim to have found adequate sources? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I made that comment latish yesterday evening. I've since been asleep and then been at work, and am shortly to go out for the evening. If I was to improve every article that I declined speedy/deprodded/expressed an opinion for keeping at AFD (probably about 30 a week) before doing so, I would never have a chance to do anything else. Frankly, I'm not keen on my editing being dictated by other editors trying to get articles deleted. If this is what you expect, it's totally unrealistic. It would also be a waste of my time to spend hours each day trying to improve articles that could still get deleted anyway - I do generally get round to improving articles at AFD that I think should be kept, but I reserve the right to wait until the discussion is closed. If this is kept, or if I find some time over the next few days, I'll try to improve it, but real life has its own demands. --Michig (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you. So you complained that I hadn't made an effort to improve the article despite having the means and ability, but no intention, of doing so yourself? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:BEFORE - before nominating an article for deletion you are expected to consider whether there are alternatives such as editing the article to deal with any issues that it has. Before commenting at AFD I searched to see if I could find evidence that the subject was notable, and identified those sources that I found; I don't think it's reasonable to expect anything more than that. Wasn't "If this is kept, or if I find some time over the next few days, I'll try to improve it" clear enough? Hardly evidence that I have no intention of improving the article.--Michig (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you think that repeatedly quoting WP:BEFORE, but not doing anything to improve the article yourself, helped the discussion? ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 16:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If you'd followed WP:BEFORE I wouldn't have quoted it. I think we're done here. No more talkbacks please. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Splendid – now, if you have a moment, could you consider answering the question? Do you think that repeatedly quoting WP:BEFORE, but not doing anything to improve the article yourself, helped the discussion? ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If you're talking about the AFD discussion, I didn't quote WP:BEFORE, let alone repeatedly. --Michig (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I really don't want the 'You have new messages' messages popping up every few minutes. I consider this discussion closed. If you continue to badger me on this issue I'll consider it harassment and deal with it appropriately. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, making threats, that's cool. That's impressive. That's mature. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 17:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for erroneous block

I'm sorry, I blocked you for a few moments just a moment ago. This was pure finger trouble on my part -- I was trying to block a vandal who you had just reverted, and blocked you instead. Please accept my apologies for the mistake, and thanks for the cleanup work! -- The Anome (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Hi TreasuryTag, just a quick ntoe to let you know that your recent comment on AN/I was unsigned; it had a datestamp but not a signature, so I'm guessing you have some sort of problem with your signature at the moment. Just thought I'd make you aware of this; I've already added an unsigned notice to your message to clarify who left the comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I probably just typed ~~~~~ rather than ~~~~ by accident. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 07:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Your recent post

TT, you do some good work, but your post on my talk page was way out of line. Making spurious accusations of "edit warring", threatening blocks, the whole thing stinks. I actually assessed the reference and found it lacking; my edit summary, and the subsequent post on the article talk page, clearly outlines that aspect of the matter. To be honest, you should have taken the matter to talk rather than reverting the IP three times, if you are really so concerned about "edit warring". Sorry for being so blunt, but this is one case where you really should have re-read your post before hitting "save". --Ckatzchatspy 09:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I did take it to talk. While you may have found the reference lacking, it was clearly a controversial issue which was being edit-warred over, and you chose to participate rather than participate in the discussion on the talkpage. That is a textbook case of disruptive activity and, as an admin, you should have known better. You should also have known better than to delete my initial post without a response, an action which WP:ADMIN tends to frown upon. Please think about your edits before hitting "save" – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 17:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
See, again, you're not accurately representing the facts. Looking at the talk page, I did leave an explanation on the article's talk page; you did not. In fact, the only people who to date commented on the "controversial" issue on that page are the IP and me. So, please don't make ridiculous claims that I didn't participate in the discussion. Don't make inappropriate comments about "edit warring" when you, yourself, were pushing 3RR by reverting when the IP was making an effort to explain their rationale. Don't make incorrect statements that I deleted your post "without response", when I clearly did respond on your talk page. Look, I'd like to discuss this in a civil manner, but you need to stop making spurious accusations if it is going to work. --Ckatzchatspy 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not representing facts accurately? If I'm not much mistaken, you reverted first (clearly not within the spirit of WP:BRD) and only contributed to the talkpage discussion after I complained about your blind reverting. Have I got the chronology right?
Secondly, you say that you did not delete my comment on your talkpage without response. That's an interesting assertion, though nevertheless completely false, since this diff clearly shows you deleting my message, and you did not communicate anything to me until after I complained – any mistakes in the chronology here?
I'm beginning to see a pattern here, in which you carry out an inappropriate action, I complain, you make a token impression of doing something about it and then insist that the original inappropriate action is nullified. But I'm afraid not. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 19:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you can hit the "save" button faster than I can doesn't mean your version of events is correct. Did you even consider the possibility that I might have actually taken the time to think through what I wanted to say, rather than just lashing out without actually assessing the situation? I really find it difficult to accept that you would think five minutes is an excessive amount of time to spend on a post. --Ckatzchatspy 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, you played the "I was writing the post all that time," card. I just won several small bets with myself. Since you ask, I did indeed consider that eventuality, and would probably have assumed it to be the case if it weren't for the fact that your response was extremely short (it genuinely does not look like the culmination of several minutes' creative endeavour), as well as my observation that you made multiple alterations to it subsequently [1] [2] [3] [4] which suggests that there was no extensive drafting process before you initially posted it. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice. Real classy, too. --19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckatz (talk • contribs)
Was that supposed to mean anything? ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 20:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, "blind reverting" is not the same thing as reverting with a detailed edit summary and an explanation on the respective talk page, both of which I provided. --Ckatzchatspy 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
See my comment above about the fact that you only commented on the talkpage after being called up on it, and the fact that you should not have reverted at all anyway regardless of the circumstances. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Look, I've explained that I was writing to you at the same time you were posting to me. You can believe it or disbelieve it as you see fit. I've no reason to mislead you, but at this point, seeing as how the conversation is going, I really don't care. --Ckatzchatspy 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about timing. I'm saying that whenever you reverted, be it before, after or simultaneous to your comment on the talkpage, you should not have reverted. At all. Full stop. That is what WP:BRD says. If you refuse to get the point that's up to you, but if you continue behaving in such a reprehensible manner then there are likely to be repurcussions. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 20:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
"Reprehensible"?!? Blatant hyperbole aside, have you learned nothing from the multitude of blocks your various accounts have incurred over the years? There's clearly nothing more to be said here. --Ckatzchatspy 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so now we're getting there. "You've been blocked so you're not competent to complain about others' edit-warring and disruptive behaviour." Bollocks. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 07:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you've missed the point completely. Look at why you were blocked, look at the way you've reacted here, and note the parallels. I'm always open to questions and criticisms, but they have to be based on reality, not over-the-top unfounded accusations. --Ckatzchatspy 11:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pacific Cinémathèque

With regard to your note, obviously it was noticable in your recent contributions, but purely coincidental that you happened to come across that topic at the same time. Unlike the other items you tagged for removal, I can attest to the notability of this one, and am fully entitled to assess whether or not it warrants a speedy deletion. As for the subsequent speedy you applied, it is clear that the poster intends to try to rectify the problem, and that the case falls outside the strict conditions of db-copyvio:

"This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution"

This isn't an admin action, as anyone can do it. If you truly feel the article warrants deletion, there is nothing preventing you from taking it to AfD. --Ckatzchatspy 11:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Uncivil edit summaries

Please remember to be civil. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you to be constantly spewing civility warnings all over this page. Please do not, ever, leave me another; if you have a continued problem with my activities, block me if you think that is appropriate or otherwise seek intervention. But I do not consider the instances you have recently highlighted to be incivil, and since we clearly disagree on the boundary-line, further discussion of the matter would be futile. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty bad at remembering things like that, but I'll try. If I think there are more civility issues in the future, I'll probably try an RFC/U first to see if other people agree with me before jumping up to the big guns. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain, Sarek, what is uncivil about asking an IP editor who has just been warned for vandalising an article and received a talk page warning, and who then repeats the vandalism despite that warning, whether or not they can read? Then again, perhaps you can't, because it isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 12 hours, for for the most pathetic edit war I have ever seen. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


{{unblock|I self-reverted back to the other editor's version just before the block kicked in. If unblocked, I would of course not repeate the behaviour, as my self-revert was intended to indicate. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)}}


Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

It appears that this editor did indeed self-revert, exiting the edit war. As such, block serves no purpose to prevent damage. And I agree, this was one of the most pathetic edit wars I've seen. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

(comment drafted before the unblocks requests, and I'm sloooow at writing what I want so finished too late :( )I fail to see the reasoning for this block honestly. It is not disputed that he engaged in edit warring (2 reverts on WP:AN), but he had clearly stopped way before the block and had engaged in meaningful discussion on the talk page. Blocks are not meant to be punitive in nature, but "to protect Wikipedia from disruptive editing". The user had stopped editwarring half an hour before he was blocked, nor there was any likelihood that he would resume. The block is an extreme measure, to prevent future harm, not to make statements about past actions. We should encourage discussion, not prevent it with punitive blocks. Snowolf How can I help? 14:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ugh it appears I completely missed the edit war in question and assumed wrongly that the object of the block was the earlier edit war on the WP:AN and not the talk page thing. My apologies HJ, didn't even saw the talk page edit war despite writing on it. Again, I'm sorry, think I didn't AGF there :( Snowolf How can I help? 15:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No apology necessary. TT, for some reason, my email client won't let me reply to you, so I'll put it here. It seems oyu reverted as I was in the process of blocking you, for which I apologise. Also, I hope you didn't get the impression that I was "blocking and running", I'd just stepped out to get something to eat before I saw Toddst's note on my talk page. Interesting half an hour you ahd there. For the record, it's nothing personal. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not to worry, water off a duck's back :) ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 15:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this no drama thing is getting out of hand. Everyone here is being far too polite and conscientious. :) Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

weird

Your edit removing the WQA notice didn't show up in the talk page history when I looked. Really weird. I guess we're edit warring, pathetically. :) Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange! It's there now by the look of it... I won't report you if you don't report me...! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent CSDs

I have had to decline the CSD for File:Peckerspatchsmall.jpg and File:Ltkendahl.jpg, neither of them appear on the front page of http://www.afblues.com/ (& I checked with 2 browsers in case there was some browser switch built in). If they are on a sub-page then you will have to specify which page as there are far too many to search through.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Bow ties are cool"

Re: this edit, you may be interested in the recent history (and protection logs) for Bow tie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Fez (hat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Curse that popular BBC TV show! TFOWR 18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake...! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Rory Williams in Doctor Who 2010 Christmas special

http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/dw/news/bulletin_100712_01/Doctor_Who_Christmas_Special_Guest_Stars_Revealed http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/07_july/12/doctor_who.shtml

Hope that clears it up :) U-Mos (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want the sources on my talkpage. Either list them alongside the content or remove the assertion altogether. In particular, do not edit-war to re-insert unreferenced material. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? It's a navbox! The entry is cited at Companion (Doctor Who), what more is there to be done? U-Mos (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I know it's a navbox. However, it is transcluded on many pages and any material contained within it must be verifiable to the readers of those pages. As WP:CITE clearly states, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Therefore, you will need to either insert an appropriate citation or delete the assertion. (FWIW, last time I checked it was not cited at Companion (Doctor Who)...) ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I had seen that it wasn't cited at the time you checked, that was unfortunate but it has been re-added now. So what's the problem? U-Mos (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know if there is any part of the following sentence which you do not understand: Wikipedia policy requires that material is cited and verifiable; the assertion in the template – which appears on pages other than Companion (Doctor Who) – is currently unreferenced, and this is problematic. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So what, you're suggesting it is cited on every page the template is used on? It's hardly relevant to say "Rory will appear in the 2010 Christmas Special" at Amy Pond is it? Just tell me what steps to take for this fully sourced fact to remain in the template and I will take them. U-Mos (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I have told you more than three times, and I am at a loss to know what you are finding complicated. Cite the fact in the template page itself. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 17:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? Ok then... U-Mos (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

On content RFCs

For the record, there is no preferred format for content RFCs. They have been done in both threaded discussion and unthreaded discussion. harej 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So I guess that there's nothing wrong with the unthreaded format then? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Guess not. *shuts the hell up*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User talkpages

Hi TT. You'll recall, possibly, that I've previously reverted an editor who spammed your talkpage?

I take the view that if editors remove a post from their talkpage, they're acknowledging that they've read it, and that reposting the same message - or essentially the same message is uncalled for. Giftiger wunsch knows all about ANI: if you feel the need to raise an issue at ANI do it, and let them know after you've done it. Frankly, this whole incident was in poor taste, and what annoys me most is that you could easily have handled it far better.

TFOWR 09:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on your talkpage, but in short, nowhere did I object to the deletion of posts. (Can you show me a diff of where I did?) I did not repost the same message: I simply gave more than one warning for gross incivility before taking the issue to ANI, as is expected of level-headed editors. Your message gives the distinct impression that you have no problem with the personal attacks emanating from Giftiger today, and I would be grateful if you could disabuse me of this notion. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 09:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Also replied on my talkpage, but in general - no, I don't have a problem with what editors say either on their own talkpages or in edit summaries when editing their own talkpages. I also cut editors a great deal more slack when there's an appearance of baiting, which, with the best will in the world, there is here. TFOWR 09:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
(More on your talkpage.) Well, you are welcome to your opinion, but I don't see WP:NPA stating, "Editors are entitled to make personal attacks within their own userspace," so I am not sure that this is a legitimate tack for you to take with me! ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

DRV

Hi, I am contacting you regarding your comment on DRV regarding the UEFA 2020 article. I didn't contact the closing admin as his talk page notice says that he is on vacation until the August 27, not because I didn't want to. Please reconsider your vote in light of this information. Thanks, --Avala (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Avala. We shouldn't be elevating form above substance in light of the closing admin's directive.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

TT, in case you missed it

This is a formal request you stay off my talk page (including talkback notices) unless you are there to apologize. Hobit (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia does not operate a system where editors may "formally request" others to stay away from their talkpage. I can find no mention of such a scheme at WP:USER, and WP:OWN certainly seems to suggest that the principle would be contrary to the project's overall ethos. I'm sure that you will appreciate, therefore, that your message above is simply an informal request, and I reserve the right to ignore it as per policy. (Incidentally, I left a comment for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kan-jam.) ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)." Again, please stay off my talk page. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I read that. Not only have I read it, but I clearly indicated to you (above) that I had read it, when I pointed out that no part of WP:USER entitles editors to ban others from their userspace. The quote you provided is marginally out of context; it so happens that it appears in a section seemingly regarding "substantial editing" of talkpages (as in, not the simple leaving of messages but actual stylistic changes, such as if you were to change my green background to a yellow background).
However, I guess that you would dispute this, in which case I would have to point out that the phrase, "it is probably sensible," is not a recognised synonym of the phrase, "it is mandatory," and to treat it as such would be inappropriate and deceitful.
For these reasons, my position remains the same. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 13:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
TT, If someone makes a "formal request", its up to you to decide whether as a matter of collegiality you will accept it. For example, I could decide to comment on every single section of your talk page if I wanted to, and you could ask me to stop such annoying behavior unless I had something substantive to add, and I would probably comply.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you'd be along. Several points:
  • No "formal request" has been made because there is no such procedure. There is nothing whatsoever which confers any sort of formality on the request.
  • Your comment essentially sums up the essence of the phrase, "it is probably sensible," in a way which I could easily have done for myself with a working knowledge of the English language.
  • Although this is not my own position, if you want to look at it this way, just think of it as me taking a leaf from Hobit's book and not taking the sensible option...
So hope that's all cleared up now. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"I thought you'd be along". hehe. I do do substantive editing, you know, when I'm not compelled to comment on silliness like this. You are always welcome on my talk page, btw.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Always good to know :) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Re: UN

Answered on the thread. --Viennese Waltz talk 08:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A New Low

Man, did you prove me wrong. I figured that your day to day edits were about as boneheaded as possible...then you [5]click your mouse and bring it to a completely new level. Don't get me wrong, I am trying to be polite and constructive here, but truth be told, you are quite the moron. Justin Observation (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Justin Observation (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so very blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was fun... ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 06:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to comment on Justin Observation's unblock request, currently on hold on their talk page.  Sandstein  11:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, this is a classic example of WP:OWB#7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hang on, I'm not getting this. Why did you report Rodhullandemu for vandalism when what happened was that an anonymous tirade was left on Rodhullandemu's talk page? --Viennese Waltz talk 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I formally apologies to Treasury Tag on being an A**. It was not my place to come to your talk page and comment as I did, I am truly sorry. My immature behavior was completely out of line and I have struck my comments above. Honesty may not be civil, and speaking openly without giving thought to the feelings of others is contrary to collaboration. If I have offended you, I hope that you will accept my sincere regret. I have realized my mistake and will behave more professionally from now on. I understand that I need to avoid this kind of nonsense in the future and will give my utmost effort to become a good editor.WP:OWB#7. Justin Observation (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2010/Jul&oldid=1257887119"