hi
You're doing an excellent job with the DuPont Manual High School article. I'm really impressed. Keep up the good work! Khalfani Khaldun 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
But really, does it really matter where that table is for several days to several weeks, in the architecture of this website? Does it really have any lasting impact, since when it's done myself or Julian (or another dozen admins on that article) will just merge it all in and then redirect the page to save the history? rootology ( C)( T) 17:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I know you're working really hard on the article, but per the non-free rationale that you used, "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." The article won't make FA with that picture in it. =/ Khalfani Khaldun 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
" Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith here and assume that the tone and statements in your last post here were not personal attacks, but I'd urge you to revisit that post and attempt to make just a wee bit more civil because it isn't at all clear whether the comments are personal or not. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not assume
ownership of articles such as
Talk:Zodiac (film). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. You were notified about the tone and content of your talk page postings
here on this talk page, admonished about it
here and suggestions were made regarding your need to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia
etiquette guidelines regarding
behavior,
civility, and
assuming good faith. If you cannot discuss an issue without resorting to insult, bad faith and sarcasm, then perhaps you should not attempt to debate an issue. Your posts border on
personal attacks and the next one that does will be reported to
WP:AN/I for attention. Either debate the issue in a mature and adult manner without becoming personal or drop it. You are gaining no ground with such posts.
LaVidaLoca (
talk)
14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note for any observers: I posted a template warning via script to this page here, which was intended to be via template {{uw-agf3}}. When I realized that I had hit the wrong script button and left {{uw-own2}}, I reopened the page to replace the template, and when it was saved, produced an edit conflict with the post made by Chiliad22. I then saved my version with the accurate edit summary stating "replacing wrong template with correct template". Chiliad22 has chosen to become argumentative over that although there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline prohibiting the correction of a posting error by the poster. It does not constitute inappropriate refactoring, deception or an attempt to disguise the intent of the original post, although in this case it did provoke constitute a quite pointy objection which has only served as an attempt to divert the intention of the post, which was a warning about Chiliad22's failure to assume good faith. In fact, his conduct only serves to reinforce that there is no good faith present. Chiliad22, there is no policy against correcting a posting error shortly after it was made. This editor has been unnecessarily contentious in any postings that I have seen him make today.
Therefore, to remove any question, I am posting the warning as it was intended to have been posted:
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You were notified about the tone and content of your talk page postings
here on this talk page, admonished about it
here and suggestions were made regarding your need to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia
etiquette guidelines regarding
behavior,
civility, and
assuming good faith. If you cannot discuss an issue without resorting to insult, bad faith and sarcasm, then perhaps you should not attempt to debate an issue. Your posts border on
personal attacks and the next one that does will be reported to
WP:AN/I for attention. Either debate the issue in a mature and adult manner without becoming personal or drop it. You are gaining no ground with such posts.
LaVidaLoca (
talk)
15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your thorough review of the prose of Elwood Haynes. I have addressed your comments and fixed most of them. Please check it out when you have a chance. Charles Edward ( Talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop a note to thank you for TRYING to use sense and logic to gain acceptance of lists of defunct store locations as acceptable contributions to Wikipedia articles. I spent countless hours listing and documenting such locations, only to have them swept away by Schuminweb and others. I agree with the logic you've provided and I believe there is value to understanding the changing retail landscape through individual store histories. There does not seem to be an appreciation for the pre-Macy's world of department store chains. Thanks for trying ...-- Pubdog ( talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask you to have another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic job market. I have answered your point, and given my own views. If you still feel the same, that's fine, but you might just want to reconsider. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thank you for expanding the article. you did an extremely successful job. Geojust1 ( talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I have posted regarding his comment, "statement" re-added today at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the San Diego Thunder entry. It now includes references to multiple websites that prove the validity of the team. These sites include pages that cover the teams championship games, historical data, highlights, and also validate their league affiliations. I apologize for not posting these references immediately. This is marks the first time I have ever made a wiki entry I have ever made.
This season, the Chargers have given us permission to wear their old powder blue jerseys, which also shows that major organizations within the are are indeed aware of our presence.
Thank you for your patience and guidance.
-- Sdthunder ( talk) 09:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I have started another nomination for the article Mariano Rivera due to the progress I made in addressing reviewer concerns. You had previously supported the article for FA in the previous nomination and I wanted to contact you to see if you could show your support again in this 2nd nomination. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your aid in understanding more about how to reference a school. I added a newspaper article to Aberdeen Middle School, but I know that it doesn't receive much attention. Thanks for your attention. RickNightCrawler ( talk) 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your first edit using this user ID was at 22:35, on 5 April 2009. Do you or have you ever edited under any other user ID? -- PBS ( talk) 12:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No, your argument was fine; it was many of the others that were rather unpersuasive. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You commented on the 2004 World Series FAC a while back. I've now started PR in the hope of renominating it. See it here. BUC ( talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The Outlaw Halo Award | |
Your comments and actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of leading shopping streets and districts by city are right on. Firefly322 ( talk) 08:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Transit Authority of River City, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
hi
You're doing an excellent job with the DuPont Manual High School article. I'm really impressed. Keep up the good work! Khalfani Khaldun 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
But really, does it really matter where that table is for several days to several weeks, in the architecture of this website? Does it really have any lasting impact, since when it's done myself or Julian (or another dozen admins on that article) will just merge it all in and then redirect the page to save the history? rootology ( C)( T) 17:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I know you're working really hard on the article, but per the non-free rationale that you used, "Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy)." The article won't make FA with that picture in it. =/ Khalfani Khaldun 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
" Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith here and assume that the tone and statements in your last post here were not personal attacks, but I'd urge you to revisit that post and attempt to make just a wee bit more civil because it isn't at all clear whether the comments are personal or not. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not assume
ownership of articles such as
Talk:Zodiac (film). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. You were notified about the tone and content of your talk page postings
here on this talk page, admonished about it
here and suggestions were made regarding your need to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia
etiquette guidelines regarding
behavior,
civility, and
assuming good faith. If you cannot discuss an issue without resorting to insult, bad faith and sarcasm, then perhaps you should not attempt to debate an issue. Your posts border on
personal attacks and the next one that does will be reported to
WP:AN/I for attention. Either debate the issue in a mature and adult manner without becoming personal or drop it. You are gaining no ground with such posts.
LaVidaLoca (
talk)
14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Note for any observers: I posted a template warning via script to this page here, which was intended to be via template {{uw-agf3}}. When I realized that I had hit the wrong script button and left {{uw-own2}}, I reopened the page to replace the template, and when it was saved, produced an edit conflict with the post made by Chiliad22. I then saved my version with the accurate edit summary stating "replacing wrong template with correct template". Chiliad22 has chosen to become argumentative over that although there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline prohibiting the correction of a posting error by the poster. It does not constitute inappropriate refactoring, deception or an attempt to disguise the intent of the original post, although in this case it did provoke constitute a quite pointy objection which has only served as an attempt to divert the intention of the post, which was a warning about Chiliad22's failure to assume good faith. In fact, his conduct only serves to reinforce that there is no good faith present. Chiliad22, there is no policy against correcting a posting error shortly after it was made. This editor has been unnecessarily contentious in any postings that I have seen him make today.
Therefore, to remove any question, I am posting the warning as it was intended to have been posted:
Please
assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You were notified about the tone and content of your talk page postings
here on this talk page, admonished about it
here and suggestions were made regarding your need to familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia
etiquette guidelines regarding
behavior,
civility, and
assuming good faith. If you cannot discuss an issue without resorting to insult, bad faith and sarcasm, then perhaps you should not attempt to debate an issue. Your posts border on
personal attacks and the next one that does will be reported to
WP:AN/I for attention. Either debate the issue in a mature and adult manner without becoming personal or drop it. You are gaining no ground with such posts.
LaVidaLoca (
talk)
15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your thorough review of the prose of Elwood Haynes. I have addressed your comments and fixed most of them. Please check it out when you have a chance. Charles Edward ( Talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop a note to thank you for TRYING to use sense and logic to gain acceptance of lists of defunct store locations as acceptable contributions to Wikipedia articles. I spent countless hours listing and documenting such locations, only to have them swept away by Schuminweb and others. I agree with the logic you've provided and I believe there is value to understanding the changing retail landscape through individual store histories. There does not seem to be an appreciation for the pre-Macy's world of department store chains. Thanks for trying ...-- Pubdog ( talk) 16:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, can I ask you to have another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic job market. I have answered your point, and given my own views. If you still feel the same, that's fine, but you might just want to reconsider. -- Doric Loon ( talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thank you for expanding the article. you did an extremely successful job. Geojust1 ( talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I have posted regarding his comment, "statement" re-added today at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the San Diego Thunder entry. It now includes references to multiple websites that prove the validity of the team. These sites include pages that cover the teams championship games, historical data, highlights, and also validate their league affiliations. I apologize for not posting these references immediately. This is marks the first time I have ever made a wiki entry I have ever made.
This season, the Chargers have given us permission to wear their old powder blue jerseys, which also shows that major organizations within the are are indeed aware of our presence.
Thank you for your patience and guidance.
-- Sdthunder ( talk) 09:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I have started another nomination for the article Mariano Rivera due to the progress I made in addressing reviewer concerns. You had previously supported the article for FA in the previous nomination and I wanted to contact you to see if you could show your support again in this 2nd nomination. Thanks. Y2kcrazyjoker4 ( talk) 14:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your aid in understanding more about how to reference a school. I added a newspaper article to Aberdeen Middle School, but I know that it doesn't receive much attention. Thanks for your attention. RickNightCrawler ( talk) 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Your first edit using this user ID was at 22:35, on 5 April 2009. Do you or have you ever edited under any other user ID? -- PBS ( talk) 12:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No, your argument was fine; it was many of the others that were rather unpersuasive. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You commented on the 2004 World Series FAC a while back. I've now started PR in the hope of renominating it. See it here. BUC ( talk) 08:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
|
The Outlaw Halo Award | |
Your comments and actions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of leading shopping streets and districts by city are right on. Firefly322 ( talk) 08:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Transit Authority of River City, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)