User talk:Daedalus969/Archive 8
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Rock Lobster
I don't understand why you are accusing me of vandalizing the Rock Lobster page with my reference to CKY3. The reason why I put in the reference about his stunt after it was deleted was becuase the original version got deleted falsely due to the use of profanity, even though that profnaity was part of a title. I put it back on there not as vandalism, but I simpy was trying to rewrite it in a more appropraite way so that it would be less offensive, and also so it wouldn't get deleted. What I wrote is factual information that was meant to provide an additional example of the song's use in popular culutre. Again, you are wrong to accuse my revision as "vandalism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessejaksin (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to your message
a) i said he could have been nicer and more constructive, i never said he violated policy b) why are you getting involved? mind your own business c) i have my rights regardless of what you would like to believe Notepad47 (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- i have the right to tell people my opinions especially when they constitute recommendations on how others can help make others more productive instead of simply shunning them as you seem to prefer. if you disagree with this, i'd flip what you're asking- why do you have the right to get involved in my conversation with other editors? if you claim it is simply that you as a member of the wikipedia community have the right to advance discussion than you are simply proving me right. please reply on my talk page. Notepad47 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- you seem to be on quite the power trip. so why are you complaining that i have shared my opinions with others then? you seem to be well within that idea and indeed you note that wikipedia encourages this. i never meant for any of my conversations to be private per se, merely i was commenting on the fact that it's a waste of the energy of everyone involved for you to berate me for a helpful comment which i rendered to another editor. that said, why are you complaning about my comments to another editor when you concede that policy encourages this? please reply on my talk page. Notepad47 (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- before anything else, please reconcile the inconsistency between your telling me that i should not comment on other people, and your doing this to me, as well as your assertion that wikipedia encourages this. then, please address how i "attacked" anyone. although i have no problem conceding that i challenge others, it is in the best nature for wikipedia for the best ideas to be discerned through meaningful, passionate discussion. where do you see *personal attacks*? additionally, your *intervention* seems to have done little but clutter my talk page as you don't seem to have actually read the discussion between us. if you have, you must agree that it is better to discourage a potentially misguided editor by branding him as a vandal and turning him away from wikipedia than it is to suggest more helpful means of helping. as i said earlier, i think that even if only 1/10 accused vandals are innocent and in good intention, that it is in wikipedias benefit to help those 1/10 to become good editors and to contribute. do you disagree? do you think wikipedia should remain a bastion of elite wikipedians? i think that wikipedia should be a place where all are encouraged to contribute, not just those who learned how wikipedia works early on. please reply on my talk page. Notepad47 (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- you seem to be on quite the power trip. so why are you complaining that i have shared my opinions with others then? you seem to be well within that idea and indeed you note that wikipedia encourages this. i never meant for any of my conversations to be private per se, merely i was commenting on the fact that it's a waste of the energy of everyone involved for you to berate me for a helpful comment which i rendered to another editor. that said, why are you complaning about my comments to another editor when you concede that policy encourages this? please reply on my talk page. Notepad47 (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- i have the right to tell people my opinions especially when they constitute recommendations on how others can help make others more productive instead of simply shunning them as you seem to prefer. if you disagree with this, i'd flip what you're asking- why do you have the right to get involved in my conversation with other editors? if you claim it is simply that you as a member of the wikipedia community have the right to advance discussion than you are simply proving me right. please reply on my talk page. Notepad47 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- i havent told them their contributions arent useful, if you actually read what i wrote you would see solid recommendations for improvement. you just like to ignore inconvenient evidence it seems. b) i have warned users neutrally i have not assumed bad faith anywhere, show me precise evidence if this is not true, c) i didn't defend an anon i simply reprimanded an editor who i thought was overly harsh, d) i felt that the same editor review applied to all of those editors. what is wrong with that? they were peas in a pod and were addressed in such a way. are you implying that i don't have good standing? who determines that? are you the wiki-G-d? e) how am i trying to game the system? be specific before you make dangerous accusations.
lastly, you have still failed to reply to my question of how to deal with potentially misguided editors. as of now you represent the ignorant wikipedia elite. how can you reconcile this with wikipedia policy? Notepad47 (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- being here longer than me doesn't make you less ignorant, your unwillingness to consider the issue i have posed to you multiple times proves that you are though. that said, you seem to have a different interpretation of good faith than i do, yours is mechanical and neutral while mine takes a more human tone. you need to stop reading context (that i am talking down to others) when you know nothing about me or how i intend for my words to be interpreted- you need to learn to ask questions to avoid these misunderstandings. i have to say though, you are very good at coming up with hyperlinks. while they are informative and i thank you for your help in helping me to better understand wikipedia policy, they do not excuse your ignorance.Notepad47 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- it is now apparent why your answers reflect such ignorance; you don't see the argument i'm making. not being aware of wikipedia policy is not so much ignorance as it is being a new user. ignorance to social norms and helping others and to the fact that you don't know right off the bat how others think regardless of what you want to believe- that is ignorance which you reflect. Notepad47 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
(OD)Notepad47, you seem to make personal attacks with every talk page post you make. Please try and be more civil in your dealings with other editors. Dayewalker (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- How am I being uncivil? Use of the word "ignorant" makes me so? I am engaged in healthy debate with Daedalus. If he wishes to cease this and makes this known to me I will not continue. However, I am curious as to his justification for the contradiction in his attitude which I have raised. I ask this as well, given that we are two consenting individuals engaged in conversation, why do you find it your place to try and stop us from continuing in our conversation? Notepad47 (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to end your conversation, I'm just telling you that you are making personal attacks, which is against policy. Continually calling Daedalus "ignorant" is extremely uncivil, and also incorrect. He knows his way around the wiki, and you posting personal attacks on him during your disagreement isn't going to lead to anything positive. Dayewalker (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
To wrap this up, Notepad47 is now blocked indef. Dayewalker (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Dark They Were, and Golden-Eyed (bookshop)
Isn't it a bit unethical to flag up the impending deletion of a UK subject page at 03:43 British local time, when those most likely to want a say in the matter are asleep? Nick Cooper (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hardly just me, as other UK-based editors may have been interested. It just strikes me as lacking in forethought and consideration to take such an action at such a time. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Friendly reminder
You shouldn't use the rollback feature to revert good faith edits (especially one that was removing POV and adding default sort to the categories) and then template an established user as if he had vandalized. Cheers. APK like a lollipop 22:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 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) 06:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
RE:Help
I am sorry to say this Daedalus969, but he does have the right to restore those comments to his talk page. You originally posted to his page, and he has the right to keep those comments threaded as they were. My advice to you: just leave his talk page and forget about it. It isn't that important to bicker over something as trivial as a couple of comments on a talk page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Re your message: I concur with Gonzo fan that it is his talk page and he may do as he wishes. You may ask him to courtesy blank the section or archive it, but you should not delete your comments. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Daedalus, I have been off-line for a small bit due to work. I don't know if you are still looking for my assistance, but I will give my opinion of the situation so if it ever presents itself, you can take my advice (or not if you don't want to). Daedalus, you need to learn that on Wikipedia, you should not care enough to get into disputes, especially a dispute as the one you were in. When one editor tells you to "go away" from their talk page, then go away. There is no need to debate what you guys were disputing. Just get over it and go do something else. There is no dispute to mediate, no problem to fix, there is one person who just doesn't want to talk to you. So don't. Then everyone forgets and goes on with their lives. Hope you understand. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Timon and Pumbaa
Welcome to Wikipedia. Just so you know, I'm not citing IMDB on that quotation; I'm sourcing the actual film. The IMDB link is a courtesy for readers of the encyclopedia who may want the IMDB info as well, as shown on Wikipedia:Citation_templates. I'm changing it back for now, since it's a proper source, cited from an authoritative media. This is a cool essay, by the way. Voretus (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for catching the mis-capitalization of my sock report. It's an honest mistake, based on his user name, but I appreciate you fixing that. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the IP vandalized this page, thus you should use vandalism tools instead of requesting speedy deletion. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on the AFD page
- Comment i suppose I might as well say it here: the quote i changed was just as much unsourced for your version as it was for the dress in drag line and I could say the same about you. otsukaresamadesu 24.17.83.230 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- moved here so it's less out of place 24.17.83.230 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Fated souls
Heh, I meant the IPs were joking when they claimed it was notable! You did the right thing bringing it to AfD. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect deletion
Greetings. I hope you have a good reason for this? Skomorokh 16:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Why on earth would you think it was a typo for Pattern Recognition? Skomorokh 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've replied at my talkpage to keep the conversation together. Regards, Skomorokh 00:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Status
how do you use a Status on your talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neomewga (talk • contribs) 20:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| 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) 05:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit
This reversion was a mistake. I reverted the edit after User:Closedmouth had reverted the vandalism. Thus, I reverted his edit instead of the edit I aimed to revert. Thanks for the notification. J.T Pearson (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The image is not on Wikipedia, it is on Commons at Commons:Image:Frankie cap.JPG, so you may want to nominate it for deletion there. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: System wars information
Re your message: I'm not comfortable emailing you the history or the diffs. If you begin the report, I'll add anybody you missed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Re your message: When I think about it, I don't think a CU is really necessary. I know all of the accounts involved and it is obvious they are related or have been in contact with one another about the whole thing so there's not much to check. I've issued various warnings. The three pages have all been deleted. I think I've got a handle on it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Re your message: That account has made no edits and the primary account appears to have stopped what he was up to. The "fun" probably got old and they gave up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"Live-action" vs. "Live action"
Sorry about the talk page problem with my attempt to move Live action role-playing game to Live-action role-playing game, I should have foreseen that problem. I attempted the move the proper way the first time, but because the article Live-action role-playing game already existed as a redirect, only an administrator could complete the move. I'm sorry, I should have put in a request for one of them (one of you?) to do so.
Nevertheless, the latter form ("live-action") is correct, and should be preferred, IMHO.
As for the need for consensus, I was simply following the policy to be bold. Of course, I don't take your reversion personally...but more explanation than simply "You moved too fast" might be nice. Do you object to the change yourself? If so, why not also revert Live-action and List of live-action role-playing groups as well?
BTW, calling me a "new user" is a little bit silly; I've just been inactive for a while. GreetingsEarthling (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit to User:GreetingsEarthling
this edit was mistaken. WP:EL is irrelevant; those are the standards for links from articles, not user pages. WP:NOT seems relevant, but a single modest link to more information about GreetingsEarthling is clearly covered by WP:USERPAGE. "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." Policing user pages for trivial infractions isn't helpful to Wikipedia and may hurt your reputation. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- (The following was copied by Alan De Smet from Daedalus's reply above, to keep the conversation in one place.) Seeing as how the page that is linked promotes other websites: Artsandfaith.com - Fascinating art criticism (particularly film) in a POV manner, I believe that would fall under promotional.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do you honestly believe that "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page" implies, "so long as your home page is absolute NPOV and free of links to other sites you like?" In your zeal to defend Wikipedia, I fear you have become too focused on the letter of the guidelines and policies and have started overlooking the intent. (As is probably obvious, I'm watching this page now, so we can keep the conversation collected.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Request for uninvolved user in ArbCom case
Re your message: Sorry, but I do not think that I am in a position to comment on it. I was not involved in any of the discussions leading up to the topic ban nor am I familiar with the issue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Re your message: There is quite a bit of material to review. However, I am not at all inclined to tell arbitrators what they need to do. Their decisions are their decisions. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
my talk page
How can you block me on the basis of "vandalizing" my own talk page? See WP:TPG if you're unfamiliar with this policy --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 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) 21:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Chanakyathegreat
You removed some images from User:Chanakyathegreat stating that "removed per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not an image gallery)". Your interpretation of it is incorrect. That policy is intended for articles whose primary content is images. This is his user page. According to WP:USERPAGE, a user can put "...some of your favorite Wikipedia articles or images (freely licensed only)..." on it. His user page met these requirements. If this weren't the policy, there will be a lot user pages that would need to be revamped, including my own. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Stjimmy61892
How dare you do such a thing. Stjimmy61892 is my friend who created his account at my house. He is NOT my sockpuppet or an alternate account. I do acknowledge that my sockpuppets are me, but Stjimmy61892 is a seperate contributor. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 11:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry if it may seem harsh, but every account created on a computer isn't a sockpuppet. Stjimmy61892 is an entirely separate person. WP:SOCK says that a sockpuppet is an alternate account used for malicious things. Most of the accounts in my case weren't. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 10:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Errr if I may, "what the..." I remember a RFCU was made back in March, but I am not aware of further developments. Can you please tell me if an other CU was conducted? On which grounds and by whom? Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Attacks
Sorry, the testmaster didn't mean to attack anyone. Testmasterflex (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: this edit summary, Jimbo claims that he doesn't mind people editing his user page. Please only revert vandalism.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 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) 05:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
In regard to this user page, please don't submit user pages for speedy deletion just because they contain an external link. Please see WP:EM and WP:BITE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
My userpage
That thing on my userpage, it wasn't describing any wikipedians. I meant it towards some of my real-world neighbers. I have reverted it. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Frogger
I think he did actually request deletion of them, so they all qualify for speedy deletion under CSD U1. I'll close the MfD and work on nuking all of them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Hello... seeing as how you're on review, some advice: generally speaking, Wikipedia etiquette is to avoid using generic templates when addressing established editors. (I'm speaking to your post here on Ophois' talk page.) That's not to say we don't express concerns to regulars; only that it is better to write a custom message, rather than a generic one that is more suited to a new editor. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no "it is not my job to fix it"
Okay, lets discuss this issue here. It is everybody's or anybodies job to fix things. Just because the creator of the article is the creator doesn't mean it is not anybody elses job to fix whatever. I'm not saying it is not the creators job to fix whatever they missed when they created the article, but I'm saying it is anybodies or everybody's job to fix things. Like i said, there is no "it is not my job to fix it" on Wikipedia, period. Mythdon (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
well
An admin decided not to speedily delete it, didn't they?:) So they clearly thought it was passable. Usually people are allowed a link to their own site on their userpage. WP:NOT says you may not host i.e. have your entire blog on wikipedia. But you're allowed a link to sites you're associated with.
WP:USER says "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language"- the user hadn't surrounded it with any language at all. Sticky Parkin 03:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. This is my tip for checking the policies for specific things, as otherwise it's very hard to do. I go into google and put the keywords of what I want to know into google. It will give you the related wiki pages, then click on 'cache' before viewing them and the search terms are highlighted [1]. This somehow finds it easier for me to find the bit I'm after. I definitely recommend using google to find the policies etc, otherwise I would never have found some pages on here.:) Sticky Parkin 12:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: Burden of finding sources
Re your message: See WP:BURDEN. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
peace
I'm not trying to get on your case; I was trying to apologize for making a mistake. all I asked was that you stop making bad assumptions about my actions. but whatever, dude. If you want to continue with that chip on your shoulder, it's not my business. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Bad assumptions? When did I make any of those? I deleted your first warning, as it didn't mean anything and you had not read policy. I then deleted your second notice, as I had moved on and didn't wish to carry it on further. It is in the past, let it go.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- okie dokie. --Ludwigs2 21:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Code Name Eternity Changes-Updated Post
You recently removed the changes to the Code Name Eternity page. Was I promoting my website? Yes, BUT it was for the benefit of the fans as there are practically no large wesbites devoted to this series. Even the "What Wikipedia is Not" page that you sent to me supports my claims. And I quote, "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. Since my website is practically the only one out there I respectfully suggest that I be allowed to resubmit my CNE website URL on the page and I request that it not be removed again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#LINK Nina Sharp (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
"..but you provide no link in a 3rd-party reliable source independent from the subject proving your fansite's notability."
Alrighty, and what is the best what to go about that? Please elaborate. I do have a number of people stating that my site is, over-all, the most notable CNE site. So what is the best method of putting the proof up on Wikipedia? You have more experiance in all of this, obviously, so help me out here. Nina Sharp (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
ANI.
This is civil??? "I'm thinking I might change my user ID to "IReceivedTelemarketingCallsAtSuppertime". Oh, the humanity!" --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly isn't aimed at you.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 01:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly was aimed at me, AFAICT. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that, secondly, strike out your afaict if it is insisting that something is a fact, when in truth, you don't know. Have you even asked the user about the comment? Also, if afaict isn't what I assume, kindly explain it to me, please.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also, how do you know for a fact that it was not aimed at Grsz? You don't. It could have been aimed at him for filling the request for admin intervention.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 02:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- It certainly was aimed at me, AFAICT. --IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 02:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
AFAICT,
this works best as Wiktionary #R. cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
DinoBird
I removed the message, as I no longer use DinoBird at all. If you feel this is not a valid reason, please contact me. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you stalking me?
It seems as if you have suddenly taken to intevening. Normally a person commenting on my things once would be considered normal by me, but the way you have suddenly started "butting in" on things involving me seems suspicious, or at least annoying. I have been on wikipedia on previous accounts (which I no-longer use). Also, the minimum for adoption is 500, I have just over 590, I hardly call that "just over". [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Category/Template help
Assuming you mean pages that are in the category and not just the blurb you see on the category page, it can't be done. {{Category:Foo Fighters}}, for example, will only produce "For more information, see Foo Fighters." along with the transwikis and all, but not the whole list of articles related to them. Sorry. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Daedalus
You asked me to provide diffs. I interpret these diffs to support my contentions that User:Wikidea vandalized the Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Here they are: [2]. The user added the category Market failure, a category which has to do with economic theory with a few actual failures of markets mixed in. He also included the category Government failure which does not exist. He pulled his little joke 2½ months ago, and never bothered to withdraw it. I think a scolding by an anonymous user is the least of what his conduct deserves. But I've noticed few administrators care about vandalism when the subject favors liberal positions even when it clearly damages the reputation of Wikipedia. 99.165.237.233 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
RE:Markup help
Hey Daedalus, as Aly89 and Gogo Dodo said on my talk page, you can add that type of overflow scroll-bar by adding the following code to your talk page:
<div style="height: 225px; width: 260px; overflow: auto;">__TOC__</div>
The scroll-bar won't show up until it is needed, i.e. when the table of contents is longer then the define height. You can also change the size of the table of contents by changing the height and width parameters. Hope this helps! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Your CU
You already know the IPs of these guys, CU won't be able to find out more. Just denying their existence is best here (protection will normally pop out soon enough to stop the attack). -- lucasbfr talk 10:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Markup
Re your message: I believe that you can use m:Template:if (backlinks edit) to do what you want. See also Help:Newlines and spaces (though that page is rather dense). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure I completely understand your question, but a space can be "coded" by using a non-breaking space, by typing in (see code). More info can be found at WP:NBSP. I am not an expert when it comes to parsing #if functions, so Gogo Dodo's solution may be what you are looking for. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your block review of User:Fclass
Please do not undo unblock reviews. Users are at liberty to challenge unblock reviews themselves, and undoing it in the way you did obfuscates the record of requests making the work of admins more difficult. By all means challenge me on my talkpage and give me time to review it myself, but do not simply undo my assessments. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wallamoose
Could you tell me where you saw the legal threat? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about causing confusion Daedalus. My bad. I posted some related videos on my talk page if you're interested. Comedy is a tough business... Take care. And again, I apologize for causing trouble.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
- Okay, but for the record I feel bad because I didn't mean to "trick" anyone. I was just expressing myself. (Wallamoose (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
Why did you erase/vandalize my comment on the AfD survey? And why did you leave a vandal warming? Please remove your vandal warning. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Please strike out or delete your warning from my talk page if you would. Thanks. 70.55.200.131 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Category/Template Help
Hello again! A couple weeks ago you asked me if there was any way to "transclude" the contents of a category. At the time I told you there wasn't, but it looks like I was wrong. The code...
<categorytree mode="pages" hideroot="on">Requests for unblock</categorytree>
...will produce (at the moment)...
...I found this code on User:MZMcBride/Watchlist, so you can thank him if you'd like. There's more information on how to work this at mw:Extension:CategoryTree. Hope this is what you were looking for! Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I Wanna Be The Guy moves
It doesn't matter how the website itself lists it. Have you read the Manual of Style? "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules." It's listed here as well. = ∫tc 5th Eye 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Request
Not entirely. I'm getting that you seem to be hinting this is someone who's been blocked before, but I don't have a clue who that would be. As for Gwen's actions, I fully support them, as that guy was being about as assholish (/me clicks "add to dictionary") as you can possibly be. I doubt a CU would be willing to look into it either, as without some sort of suspicion on who we're looking for, they'd just say 
Checkuser is not for fishing. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks :-)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 03:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:N681843294_832354_9699.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:N681843294_832354_9699.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Please review WP:ATHLETE. He performed at the highest level in his sport. He even was good - with 16 Top 10 finishes in 89 races according to the infobox on the deleted article. Don't you think that I could find a huge number of reliable sources on him if I was actually given a chance? To speedy delete something means it was a very obviously bad article like "Tighe Scott is my brother". This isn't even borderline for a speedy. It definitely should have received a full deletion discussion before it was deleted. I can see why new contributors get turned off of Wikipedia in cases like this. If I were new, I would be p*#-ed off wondering what kind of articles are acceptable if something with a high level of notability gets deleted. Royalbroil 05:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Edits by Indef blocked users
Fair enough. But I think you're mistaken about the need to revert all edits by indefinitely blocked users. Even if a user is banned (and as far as I can see that user was not banned, just indef blocked), this section pretty much says that there's no blanket rule that helpful edits must be reverted. The edit by the sock was helpful because the name of the state really should be linked in the first sentence. I'm going to re-link it now. - Mark 07:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Daedalus969...
It is plain and simple fact, on that page there are 2 types of countries. Those blue countries which DO recognize, and those red countries which DO NOT, you can't be nuetral in a recognize and don't recognize question, theres only 2 choices, not 3, therfor, i am not promoting POV, i am stating the SIMPLE FACT that if the country hasn't recognized kosovo, it is saying it rejects kosovo. russia and serbia just outright said it, all those other countries, they just don';t wanna get either side mad, but are still not recognizing kosovo, see the problem with your "recognize, neutral and don't recognize" thing, if they are neutral, they still are not recognizing kosovos Move for independance. Hell, this si coming gfrom somebody that should want to have as much blue and light blue on that map since i support kosovo, so you can't call me pushing serbian pov when im in the anti serbian pov camp.--Jakezing (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't revert my edits.
It's rude.—Preceding unsigned comment added by G2K11 (talk • contribs)
Man, that was fun.
If you ever decide to go off on another long-term vandal, you have my support. I believe in this project and its rules of etiquette, but there are times when you need to drop the carrot and whip out the stick. Nice job. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
PMDrive1061 (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 their talk page with a friendly message.
That's quite a revelation. Reformed vandals are rare on this site. I'm pleased more than I can express that you've seen the value of this site and are working to improve it. Trying to revert vandalism can be a thankless task. I was once an admin and I gave back the tools. Too much contention, too many threats of reprisal. In one two-year period, I managed to stay away for nineteen months. I'd left yet again a couple of months ago and I just couldn't stay away. I've been actually editing and adding articles while reducing the vandal-slaying in order to preserve my sanity. :) When you're ready to sit down and write an article, I'm your guy. Drop me a howdy and let's do something more constructive than screwing with Jimbo's user page! It is therefore with great honor I give to you the following barnstar. User:RickK was a friend and trusted ally on this site and I still miss him greatly. You earned this.
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For conspicuous bravery in the face of long-term vandals and for gallantry in seeing the errors of vandalism, it is with great pleasure that I bestow on you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC) |