source. If he has played 5 minutes for St Helens, then he belongs in Category:St Helens RFC players. Perhaps you could chase up the person who deleted the valid information from the Johnny Vegas article without giving any reason and notify them that unexplained deletion of information is considered vandalism. I would do it but I've got a huge backlog on my watchlist to deal with. Also, please remember to sign your messages with 4 tildes, regards, King of the North East 16:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever stopped and thought that maybe my userpage has never been vandalised because it is semi-protected? ( I love entei ( talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
In regards to the Cunt page protection, I left a note here regarding my reasoning for the protection. But I do realize it is you have the article watchlisted, and are quite adept and quick at the reverts. If you were to request unprotection, I would support it, but I'm under the belief that the article is obviously more subject to childish vandalism than the majority of other articles, so leaving it open to any edit just seems a little, well, odd at times. I just thought I'd swing by to let you know I left my comment at the thread. Merry Christmas! Jmlk 1 7 21:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure doubting Collins' creepiness - I finally got a hold of Seconds Out on Saturday night. I mean, sure, Willow Farm is an exercise in insanity, but that's no reason to include a maniacal laugh in it, Phil. Will ( talk) 00:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | 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) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, i have left a message with the user, does this sound okay? Am i able to mark this incident as resolved, or are still wanting more action to be taken? Tiptoety talk 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
not sure if you've been notified of [1] DGG ( talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In all seriousness, Inkscape, a lot of patience, a steady hand, and Google Maps open in the other tab. Will ( talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{ subst:Vangel}}! Tiptoety talk 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
This is regarding the message you left on telugu wikipedia [2] We could not understand what this all about. Can you explain? -- Dunnob ( talk) 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, -- El on ka 05:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As you have some experience with the Elvis Presley article and the problems discussed on the related talk page, could I possibly ask you for a short statement here. Thanks. Onefortyone ( talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ive chilled.. ive got another fag on my back now.
probably wikipedia is full on computer fags.
you not included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olirampling ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see talk page on the article...or ignore, since you have reverted your own change. Kransky ( talk) 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't know that [3]this edit was such a good idea. Avruch talk 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Your frustration is understandable, but they aren't terrorists - they're just bored kids, doing something they think is funny and irritating but harmless. They're largely correct, at least with regards to WP:AN/I or pages that are closely watched. There is an effectively unlimited number of unbanned IP addresses, so we will never be able to just 'kill 'em all'. Efficient reversion tools are the answer, or a re-evaluation of the idea of letting IPs edit. Either way, nothing is gained by taunting them. As for the guy who says he can just 'reboot his router'... Only the last part of an IP address is controlled by a router, so now that he's pointed it out the router range can be banned - problem solved. Avruch talk 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hay, this is in reference to the article that was copied into the toranto star. I just checked their website, and it appears the writer is still working for them...but her articles are all her own now. No word on the donation, but I will imagine that somthing was contributed because the thought makes me smile. Coffeepusher ( talk) 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there's no problem, now that I see that the band has an article and produced notable music. If the anonymous user who put the name in there had provided more information, I would not have deleted in the first place. Thanks for your message, and for clearing this up. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, seems I was a little too bold for some, but all in good faith, there is no chance of the article being deleted. Random Fixer Of Things ( talk) 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I was spell correcting articles yesterday and it seems you rollback one of my edits with out much of an explanation. The diff is here. If you see, I change that spelling because I look at multiple dictionaries such as dictionary.com and other such resources. Can you look at that edit you made closely to see if you made a mistake? Pre ston H 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That IP user is an editor with the nickname "the Falsifier". Some of his edits are valid. But most have false information buried within his edits. His edit patterns resemble, or mimic, the edits of the "toy town vandal" who frequents many movie and TV shows relating to childrens entertainment. It is easier to simply revert him rather than try and prowl through and determine what small parts can be saved. Wiki admins User:KnowledgeofSelf and User:Wiki alf are both very familiar with this user and what he's about. Feel free to report to either of them if you cross paths with him. (although right now Alf is having local ISP troubles and is only online sporadically until he gets straightened out). Hope that helps Have a nice day. 156.34.210.254 ( talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Snowolf How can I help? 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for refering to my edit to Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey as a good faith edit as opposed to vandalism. Some people like to fling "vandalism" at people like you'd fling mud. I agree with you, the source I added wasn't great. I am in the process of adding sources to the article (which is currently unsourced), and that happened to be the first. I'll look for a more notable source, and also look for sources for other things mentioned in the article. Feel free to help! Wakedream ( talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on the head! PREVIOUS SERIES making him a previous character, this doesn't lessen his importance to the series it only illustrates he is not in the cast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsworld ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldnt luke gell be put in the template box as he is now officialy a cast member and also shoudlnt arthur be put in minor characters on the characters page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.153.141 ( talk) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Main reason for the non-canon tag is the major injuries to the cast, viz. death... seems the NHS are great in the North-West if they revived the corpses and re-attached limbs to allow service as normal for series 7. Maybe don't mention how Hayley was last seen, and remove my additional comment? AirdishStraus ( talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rodhullandemu - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. I'll remember what you said during my RfA, and let's hope that if I ever feel inclined to jump into something headfirst, they'll remind me why you supported giving me the mop in the first place, and I'll pull back. Anyway, if I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 08:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
QI is useless as a reference. See WP:V. I had a problem with the word propagated in the version I RVd ... it may be true but suggests that our rendition was in some way arising out of the QI coverage, which is wrong. Curious - to me - is NPOV since either version (berwick was at war; the whole thing is a myth) is curious. Bottom line: the current version is IMO better wording than the version I RVd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Soxred93 | talk count bot 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the meassge but you could have just taken the tag off without telling me. However, a shorter introduction to Doctor Who would be nice as too many people will be turning away due to the sheer volume that they have to read before the main section begins. yettie0711 ( talk) 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should go for RFA now, without further delay. You have strong contributions, and if you promise to take your time and ease into it, you'll do well. Just don't run off and start blocking people right away. If you want to screw up, make sure you screw up the articles, not the users. :-D I also think it's helpful to get coaching after you pass RfA. Jehochman Talk 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for showing your confidence in me as a user here, it is much appreciated. I would also like to commend you for all of your great contributions to the project. The reason i have not held another RfA is because i am honoring my promise from my last RfA to wait until someone else has nominated me. Plus i have been waiting for the "right time", but to be honest i am not sure when the "right time" is, who knows it may be now, or in 5 months. :) Tiptoety talk 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 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) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A fine note it is: he easily qualifies as the most incoherent established editor I've seen. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Now we have two editors that don't support your opinion and despite that you keep deleting a fact despite your own admission it might be true. So the natural question to ask is why don't you just tag it using a myriad of tags such as a fact tag instead of removing the fact like you did? Dr.K. ( talk) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For catching vandalism on my userpage.-- Urban Rose 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You still looking for a coach? I'd be happy to help if you are. - Revolving Bugbear 13:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I think: I think you could pass an RfA now, provided that there aren't any problems that I missed while looking through your contribs. You seem to be a level-headed, intelligent, hardworking editor. You also have racked up an impressive number of edits in a relatively short time. That being said, there are a few things people will want to know:
That's all that's occurred to me so far. - Revolving Bugbear 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ready to take the plunge?
... :) - Revolving Bugbear 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You weren't wrong but you were not correct either - I was editing so that the dates were consistent, rather than American style one place and British another. As for edit warring, I do believe you began it by reversing my edits for seemingly no reason. I believe you did the same on another page I edited, giving no valid reason and deleting important information. Why do that? Revenge? Thats a bit petty.
According to the guidelines you posted on my talk page, edits should not be made without substantial reason to do so... and I had substantial reason to do so, since there was no consistency - British dates were mixed in with American style, resulting in a poor-looking site. Hence, SUBSTANTIAL REASON TO DO SO. This also falls in line with the guideline which states that changes should not be made if there is a proven stability of style - and as I said, there is no stability of style as mentioned in the guidelines you posted - as I said American and British style dates were mixed - since there was no stability my edits are valid and stand.
Last, I didnt give a reason because I just figured out how to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblachly ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
While trying to maintain my cool about the issue, I forgot to notify the user. I've only ever been on the other side of ANI, and never reported anyone, haha. Thanks. the_undertow talk 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Damn, i missed it, i wanted to have at least co-nominated you, i guess i slacked off, sorry. Anyways just letting you know that i asked you a few questions on your RfA, feel free to take your time. Good luck! Tiptoety talk 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. -- Maniwar ( talk) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Rod, after sitting and thinking for a bit, and changing my !vote to neutral in your RFA, I have come to offer an apology. I should not have templated you, especially with a vandalism warning. You are a great asset here, and I look forward to nothing but positive interactions with you from here on out! Respectfully, Jmlk 1 7 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You had written:
Thanks. I plan to get started on the article soon.-- ISKapoor ( talk) 07:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I will take care of this ASAP. - Revolving Bugbear 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No it is true, read Sunday Sport dated January 20, 2008, page 16, bottom section. Antun Gustav ( talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know, I am quite happy to consider this issue to be in the hands of someone else now. -- Roleplayer ( talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
source. If he has played 5 minutes for St Helens, then he belongs in Category:St Helens RFC players. Perhaps you could chase up the person who deleted the valid information from the Johnny Vegas article without giving any reason and notify them that unexplained deletion of information is considered vandalism. I would do it but I've got a huge backlog on my watchlist to deal with. Also, please remember to sign your messages with 4 tildes, regards, King of the North East 16:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever stopped and thought that maybe my userpage has never been vandalised because it is semi-protected? ( I love entei ( talk) 19:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
In regards to the Cunt page protection, I left a note here regarding my reasoning for the protection. But I do realize it is you have the article watchlisted, and are quite adept and quick at the reverts. If you were to request unprotection, I would support it, but I'm under the belief that the article is obviously more subject to childish vandalism than the majority of other articles, so leaving it open to any edit just seems a little, well, odd at times. I just thought I'd swing by to let you know I left my comment at the thread. Merry Christmas! Jmlk 1 7 21:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure doubting Collins' creepiness - I finally got a hold of Seconds Out on Saturday night. I mean, sure, Willow Farm is an exercise in insanity, but that's no reason to include a maniacal laugh in it, Phil. Will ( talk) 00:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | 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) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, i have left a message with the user, does this sound okay? Am i able to mark this incident as resolved, or are still wanting more action to be taken? Tiptoety talk 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
not sure if you've been notified of [1] DGG ( talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
In all seriousness, Inkscape, a lot of patience, a steady hand, and Google Maps open in the other tab. Will ( talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{ subst:Vangel}}! Tiptoety talk 21:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC) |
This is regarding the message you left on telugu wikipedia [2] We could not understand what this all about. Can you explain? -- Dunnob ( talk) 03:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, -- El on ka 05:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As you have some experience with the Elvis Presley article and the problems discussed on the related talk page, could I possibly ask you for a short statement here. Thanks. Onefortyone ( talk) 02:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Ive chilled.. ive got another fag on my back now.
probably wikipedia is full on computer fags.
you not included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olirampling ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see talk page on the article...or ignore, since you have reverted your own change. Kransky ( talk) 13:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't know that [3]this edit was such a good idea. Avruch talk 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Your frustration is understandable, but they aren't terrorists - they're just bored kids, doing something they think is funny and irritating but harmless. They're largely correct, at least with regards to WP:AN/I or pages that are closely watched. There is an effectively unlimited number of unbanned IP addresses, so we will never be able to just 'kill 'em all'. Efficient reversion tools are the answer, or a re-evaluation of the idea of letting IPs edit. Either way, nothing is gained by taunting them. As for the guy who says he can just 'reboot his router'... Only the last part of an IP address is controlled by a router, so now that he's pointed it out the router range can be banned - problem solved. Avruch talk 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hay, this is in reference to the article that was copied into the toranto star. I just checked their website, and it appears the writer is still working for them...but her articles are all her own now. No word on the donation, but I will imagine that somthing was contributed because the thought makes me smile. Coffeepusher ( talk) 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there's no problem, now that I see that the band has an article and produced notable music. If the anonymous user who put the name in there had provided more information, I would not have deleted in the first place. Thanks for your message, and for clearing this up. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, seems I was a little too bold for some, but all in good faith, there is no chance of the article being deleted. Random Fixer Of Things ( talk) 01:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I was spell correcting articles yesterday and it seems you rollback one of my edits with out much of an explanation. The diff is here. If you see, I change that spelling because I look at multiple dictionaries such as dictionary.com and other such resources. Can you look at that edit you made closely to see if you made a mistake? Pre ston H 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That IP user is an editor with the nickname "the Falsifier". Some of his edits are valid. But most have false information buried within his edits. His edit patterns resemble, or mimic, the edits of the "toy town vandal" who frequents many movie and TV shows relating to childrens entertainment. It is easier to simply revert him rather than try and prowl through and determine what small parts can be saved. Wiki admins User:KnowledgeofSelf and User:Wiki alf are both very familiar with this user and what he's about. Feel free to report to either of them if you cross paths with him. (although right now Alf is having local ISP troubles and is only online sporadically until he gets straightened out). Hope that helps Have a nice day. 156.34.210.254 ( talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Snowolf How can I help? 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for refering to my edit to Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey as a good faith edit as opposed to vandalism. Some people like to fling "vandalism" at people like you'd fling mud. I agree with you, the source I added wasn't great. I am in the process of adding sources to the article (which is currently unsourced), and that happened to be the first. I'll look for a more notable source, and also look for sources for other things mentioned in the article. Feel free to help! Wakedream ( talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
You've hit the nail on the head! PREVIOUS SERIES making him a previous character, this doesn't lessen his importance to the series it only illustrates he is not in the cast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsworld ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldnt luke gell be put in the template box as he is now officialy a cast member and also shoudlnt arthur be put in minor characters on the characters page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.153.141 ( talk) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Main reason for the non-canon tag is the major injuries to the cast, viz. death... seems the NHS are great in the North-West if they revived the corpses and re-attached limbs to allow service as normal for series 7. Maybe don't mention how Hayley was last seen, and remove my additional comment? AirdishStraus ( talk) 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rodhullandemu - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. It passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. I'll remember what you said during my RfA, and let's hope that if I ever feel inclined to jump into something headfirst, they'll remind me why you supported giving me the mop in the first place, and I'll pull back. Anyway, if I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 08:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
QI is useless as a reference. See WP:V. I had a problem with the word propagated in the version I RVd ... it may be true but suggests that our rendition was in some way arising out of the QI coverage, which is wrong. Curious - to me - is NPOV since either version (berwick was at war; the whole thing is a myth) is curious. Bottom line: the current version is IMO better wording than the version I RVd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Soxred93 | talk count bot 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the meassge but you could have just taken the tag off without telling me. However, a shorter introduction to Doctor Who would be nice as too many people will be turning away due to the sheer volume that they have to read before the main section begins. yettie0711 ( talk) 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you should go for RFA now, without further delay. You have strong contributions, and if you promise to take your time and ease into it, you'll do well. Just don't run off and start blocking people right away. If you want to screw up, make sure you screw up the articles, not the users. :-D I also think it's helpful to get coaching after you pass RfA. Jehochman Talk 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for showing your confidence in me as a user here, it is much appreciated. I would also like to commend you for all of your great contributions to the project. The reason i have not held another RfA is because i am honoring my promise from my last RfA to wait until someone else has nominated me. Plus i have been waiting for the "right time", but to be honest i am not sure when the "right time" is, who knows it may be now, or in 5 months. :) Tiptoety talk 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 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) 08:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A fine note it is: he easily qualifies as the most incoherent established editor I've seen. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Now we have two editors that don't support your opinion and despite that you keep deleting a fact despite your own admission it might be true. So the natural question to ask is why don't you just tag it using a myriad of tags such as a fact tag instead of removing the fact like you did? Dr.K. ( talk) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For catching vandalism on my userpage.-- Urban Rose 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You still looking for a coach? I'd be happy to help if you are. - Revolving Bugbear 13:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I think: I think you could pass an RfA now, provided that there aren't any problems that I missed while looking through your contribs. You seem to be a level-headed, intelligent, hardworking editor. You also have racked up an impressive number of edits in a relatively short time. That being said, there are a few things people will want to know:
That's all that's occurred to me so far. - Revolving Bugbear 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ready to take the plunge?
... :) - Revolving Bugbear 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You weren't wrong but you were not correct either - I was editing so that the dates were consistent, rather than American style one place and British another. As for edit warring, I do believe you began it by reversing my edits for seemingly no reason. I believe you did the same on another page I edited, giving no valid reason and deleting important information. Why do that? Revenge? Thats a bit petty.
According to the guidelines you posted on my talk page, edits should not be made without substantial reason to do so... and I had substantial reason to do so, since there was no consistency - British dates were mixed in with American style, resulting in a poor-looking site. Hence, SUBSTANTIAL REASON TO DO SO. This also falls in line with the guideline which states that changes should not be made if there is a proven stability of style - and as I said, there is no stability of style as mentioned in the guidelines you posted - as I said American and British style dates were mixed - since there was no stability my edits are valid and stand.
Last, I didnt give a reason because I just figured out how to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblachly ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
While trying to maintain my cool about the issue, I forgot to notify the user. I've only ever been on the other side of ANI, and never reported anyone, haha. Thanks. the_undertow talk 00:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Damn, i missed it, i wanted to have at least co-nominated you, i guess i slacked off, sorry. Anyways just letting you know that i asked you a few questions on your RfA, feel free to take your time. Good luck! Tiptoety talk 01:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. -- Maniwar ( talk) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Rod, after sitting and thinking for a bit, and changing my !vote to neutral in your RFA, I have come to offer an apology. I should not have templated you, especially with a vandalism warning. You are a great asset here, and I look forward to nothing but positive interactions with you from here on out! Respectfully, Jmlk 1 7 03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You had written:
Thanks. I plan to get started on the article soon.-- ISKapoor ( talk) 07:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I will take care of this ASAP. - Revolving Bugbear 16:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
No it is true, read Sunday Sport dated January 20, 2008, page 16, bottom section. Antun Gustav ( talk) 15:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know, I am quite happy to consider this issue to be in the hands of someone else now. -- Roleplayer ( talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)