![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. Tfz has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
![]() |
This user was a participant in the 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, improving articles from July 18–22. |
I have been editing WP intermittently for over four years. Most of my edits are grammar based ones, and I don't usually log in, as normally, I'm just an avid reader. Tfz
Do you really oppose moving Ireland's island content to Ireland (island) and moving Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland? Why? Your "oppose" vote said "it won't work", which is perplexing. -- Evertype· ✆ 11:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC) You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Relative distance "mainland" Great Britain is an irrelevance, as the "nearness" depends on the extremities, which in this case means St Kilda (and thus GB). This is going beyond GF, past POV and now into trolling and vandalism. 8-( Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Hi, I understand the point you are making with the change to the British Isles article, but you are only going to end up in an edit war. No-one disputes the reference. But. What makes your reference *better* than other references? What about weight/volume of other references - why should a single reference "trump" 100 other references? And there'll probably be lots of other arguments against your edit that other editors will make. This is an area I am ... familiar .. with, having been in the wars myself. There is a task force set up to discuss usage of the term - WP:BISLES, and I fully expect there to be a lot of activity on this task force as soon as the arbitrators finish with the "Ireland" issue. So it's probably best to chillax a little until then. This topic is on a lot of people's list and ain't going anywhere. -- HighKing ( talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) The "British and Irish Lions" name did not come into being until 2001. The instances of "and Irish" that i have removed were premature and thus left the team misnamed. Rory Underwood, for example, may have represented the "British Lions" but he did not play for a side called the "British and Irish Lions". It's not exactly a major issue i know but accuracy is accuracy. siarach ( talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Setting pics at 150px will make them MUCH smaller for those, like me, who have preferences set at 300px. Thatis why it is recommended that pics are not normally set that small. Johnbod ( talk) 01:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please DO NOT remove my comments on an article talk page. My comments were valid, and were posing a valid question, which you don't seem to want to answer. I take exception to being labelled a troll. LevenBoy ( talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Please not change the time indicator on the CBC article, p.m. is an official accepted version of the time indicator, and in Canada it is the official way of indicating it. It is the version CBC uses, and the official version for the country of the article. In addition p.m. is the version suggested for use on the manual of style. I know it doesn't seem like correct English to have the letters lower case, but it's just the way things have gone over the evolution of the English language. Canterbury Tail talk 11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Hi Tfz, you may or may not be aware that some time ago during 2007 and 2008 User:HighKing embarked on a campaign to remove British Isles from Wikipedia. This caused enormous ill felling and his actions spilled over into many other Irish and British articles. Eventually a major battle between User:TharkunColl and User:HighKing resulted in an agreement that the term "British Isles" would neither be added to, nor removed from, any articles without consensus - i.e. agreement on the Talk page. Things have been relatively quiet since that time, but I now see that you have removed British Isles, or renamed an article to effectively remove it, without first obtaining agreement. Your actions may well be valid, but you must get consensus first if we are to avoid conflict again. LemonMonday Talk 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Was that your inspiration? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. ( talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If the article name was changed today I wouldn't bat an eyelid. I do understand why you think it should change and as I said, I am sympathetic to your view. I was only giving you the realities of what has gone on before at the talk page, where there is no consensus for change and the majority of editors believe because it is the most common term then it should stay as it is. My view? If there were consensus to change it I would be more than happy with that, but that's not going to happen in the near future I'm afraid. Jack forbes ( talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring on this article. If you have a problem with the agreed text, please discuss on the Talk page. Please self-revert in the meantime. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Hi Mooretwin is edit warring at the above page (as usual). I don't wish to get caught up in an edit war with him so I was hoping you help out by posting on the talk page and reverting his disruptive behaviour? Thanks. MITH 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please read Talk:Derry#1RR_on_City_Walls_edits. Canterbury Tail talk 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
My password is scrambled, and I have left wikipedia. Tfz 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
By the magic of a cookie I was able to retrieve my password, which I scrambled last evening being quite upset with events. It's impossible for me to stay with the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration, that the simple proposals on the Ireland article are to go to a community vote, when there is almost a consensus amongst the reasonable editors there. Unfortunately a few vociferous editors are holding "sway", and moderators and admins fail to notice. Moderate editors who are prepared to reach compromise are not heeded, editors who want to draw lines on granite are. Tfz 10:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I would ignore those comments one look at BW user page and any fool could see that they weren't an Irish nationalist so take the comments as the are foolish. BigDunc Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what makes you oppose an STV poll which would have the merit of allowing everyone to express a ranked set of preferences. Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll lays out all the options clearly. You claim that there is "almost a consensus amongst the reasonable editors" — where is that clearly laid out, as Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's is? Since it isn't laid out clearly anywhere, "almost consensus" is vague. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree, I've shaken the dust of me from that place; I’ve to much self respect to help perpetuate the myth that it's anything other than a POV speakers corner. Bartering on the name of an internationally recognised Nation based on nothing but bias. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop removing correct information from Garden of Remembrance (Dublin). A large number of Irish fought specifically for the Allies (not just 'foreign armies') and the Irish regiments can not be swept under the historical rug. Edward321 ( talk) 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tfz. I have archived the poll you initiated at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Talk pages are for discussion of its associated article, and is not an appropriate venue for a vote of confidence on other processes. If you think there is a problem with the collaboration process you should discuss it on its own talk page or else you can bring it to the attention of the moderator(s) on their talk pages. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, you can always contact the Arbs on their page or even by mailing list. Finally, you are also welcome to create a poll in your user space User:Tfz/Poll and create a link to it in the relevant venues. Thanks. Rockpocke t 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's "Evertype". -- Evertype· ✆ 16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you are getting the wikipedia blues. Try taking a week or two away from the place then come back as semi-retired. You may find that going to semi-retired immediately doesn't work as you tend to edit as much as before. It really is quite refreshing to stay completely away from the place for a short time. Jack forbes ( talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In reverting my edit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft), your edit summary was "say where". I linked to where. Click on the word "talk" in my edit summary. It brings you to the relevand section at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft). Anyhow, I'm out of here for today - the sun is shining and the lawn needs mowed. Scolaire ( talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:POINT. -- ( ɔ| ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
{{ holiday}} A break, smile! Tfz 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC) You were right about "between" but "among" is problematic. Could you propose edits on the Talk page? We're very close to closure (I hope) and its best to try to make changes as transparent as possible. (Even Scolaire posted a notice of a full stop.) -- Evertype· ✆ 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Be not afraid. If I'm the lone dissenting voice? the merge proposal will pass. GoodDay ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I see now, it wasn't a proposal by Domer. But, rather just an exampler. PS: Thanks for not deleting my postings here. It shows class & patients on your part. GoodDay ( talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Glad you liked the quote, work away and use it. Its from 1899 so copyright is not an issue. I might use it myself under the Froude quote on my user page, it seems to fit nicely with it. -- Domer48 'fenian' 07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Your position statement was excellent. Please put it back! Don't allow other people's thoughtless comments get to you. Scolaire ( talk) 11:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't the Ballot suppose to have started tonight (yesterday now) or have I been hallucinating again. Jack forbes ( talk) 23:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Why, on 29th May, did you redirect this article as a POV fork, but today did the exact opposite action? Mooretwin ( talk) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You are now officially addicted to wikipedia. I am thinking of starting an advice page for those editors who get sweaty palms and the shakes when too long away from their addiction. You will of course be welcome to sign up free of charge. ;) Jack forbes ( talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That is not what he said. Here is what he specifically said:
Chillum did not say to remove anything. He said that it is acceptable to remove personal attacks, but that if you are reverted you should not remove it again. I reverted Sarah, so she should not have removed it again, if she had been following Chillum's advice. She should have sought an outside party to investigate, not removed it again. john k ( talk) 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to open a thread at WP:RFCN, or should I? -- King Öomie 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments like these [6] are unhelpful - see WP:SOAPBOX. Comments like these [7] are effectively unwarranted personal attacks - see WP:NPA. I've been keeping this in reserve, but I have to tell you I'm willing to a request a topic ban for people who disrupt the discussion. Please do not make this necessary. Rd232 talk 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Follow process, dont move anymore without a RM, i will revert! BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. If I could talk and write Scottish Gaelic I'm sure I'd understand the meaning. Unfortunately, I wasn't taught my native language in school. Must be the only country in the world that thinks our native language shouldn't be taught to the natives. I also find it hysterically funny that the Scots Language is considered a language on it's own. As I heard someone comment once, "I must be a genius at languages as I could understand most of what was being said without being taught". Jack forbes ( talk) 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This is from a completely neutral Anglo-Irish admin. Please feel free to continue your "campaign" against British motorway articles. Where they are reasonale, I will support you. Where they aren't (i.e. M4) I will oppose you every time. And - let's be clear abour this - I will block you if you if you are disruptive, in exactly the way I would block disruptive editors on the other side. OK? Black Kite 00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I may've found the solution. -- GoodDay ( talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Then again, maybe not. GoodDay ( talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I'd like to point out that my posts on Domers talk page where by no means intended to be trolling. I hope you didn't get that impression. It was my little (bad) joke that seemed to be followed on by a couple of editors who seemed, how shall I put it, a little more serious. I have removed my posts hoping Domer didn't take it the wrong way. Anyway, thought I'd try and clear that up. Cheers! Jack forbes ( talk) 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries Jack, your did get the right impression above. If an editors comments are removed you assume they have been read. Tfz, thanks for the post, assume it was read. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC) To prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [9]. Thanks, Black Kite 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}}) There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph ( talk) 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Hi, |
![]() | This user may have left Wikipedia. Tfz has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
![]() |
This user was a participant in the 2009 Great Wikipedia Dramaout, improving articles from July 18–22. |
I have been editing WP intermittently for over four years. Most of my edits are grammar based ones, and I don't usually log in, as normally, I'm just an avid reader. Tfz
Do you really oppose moving Ireland's island content to Ireland (island) and moving Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland? Why? Your "oppose" vote said "it won't work", which is perplexing. -- Evertype· ✆ 11:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC) You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin ( talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Relative distance "mainland" Great Britain is an irrelevance, as the "nearness" depends on the extremities, which in this case means St Kilda (and thus GB). This is going beyond GF, past POV and now into trolling and vandalism. 8-( Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Hi, I understand the point you are making with the change to the British Isles article, but you are only going to end up in an edit war. No-one disputes the reference. But. What makes your reference *better* than other references? What about weight/volume of other references - why should a single reference "trump" 100 other references? And there'll probably be lots of other arguments against your edit that other editors will make. This is an area I am ... familiar .. with, having been in the wars myself. There is a task force set up to discuss usage of the term - WP:BISLES, and I fully expect there to be a lot of activity on this task force as soon as the arbitrators finish with the "Ireland" issue. So it's probably best to chillax a little until then. This topic is on a lot of people's list and ain't going anywhere. -- HighKing ( talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB ( talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) The "British and Irish Lions" name did not come into being until 2001. The instances of "and Irish" that i have removed were premature and thus left the team misnamed. Rory Underwood, for example, may have represented the "British Lions" but he did not play for a side called the "British and Irish Lions". It's not exactly a major issue i know but accuracy is accuracy. siarach ( talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Setting pics at 150px will make them MUCH smaller for those, like me, who have preferences set at 300px. Thatis why it is recommended that pics are not normally set that small. Johnbod ( talk) 01:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please DO NOT remove my comments on an article talk page. My comments were valid, and were posing a valid question, which you don't seem to want to answer. I take exception to being labelled a troll. LevenBoy ( talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Please not change the time indicator on the CBC article, p.m. is an official accepted version of the time indicator, and in Canada it is the official way of indicating it. It is the version CBC uses, and the official version for the country of the article. In addition p.m. is the version suggested for use on the manual of style. I know it doesn't seem like correct English to have the letters lower case, but it's just the way things have gone over the evolution of the English language. Canterbury Tail talk 11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Hi Tfz, you may or may not be aware that some time ago during 2007 and 2008 User:HighKing embarked on a campaign to remove British Isles from Wikipedia. This caused enormous ill felling and his actions spilled over into many other Irish and British articles. Eventually a major battle between User:TharkunColl and User:HighKing resulted in an agreement that the term "British Isles" would neither be added to, nor removed from, any articles without consensus - i.e. agreement on the Talk page. Things have been relatively quiet since that time, but I now see that you have removed British Isles, or renamed an article to effectively remove it, without first obtaining agreement. Your actions may well be valid, but you must get consensus first if we are to avoid conflict again. LemonMonday Talk 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Was that your inspiration? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. ( talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If the article name was changed today I wouldn't bat an eyelid. I do understand why you think it should change and as I said, I am sympathetic to your view. I was only giving you the realities of what has gone on before at the talk page, where there is no consensus for change and the majority of editors believe because it is the most common term then it should stay as it is. My view? If there were consensus to change it I would be more than happy with that, but that's not going to happen in the near future I'm afraid. Jack forbes ( talk) 22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring on this article. If you have a problem with the agreed text, please discuss on the Talk page. Please self-revert in the meantime. Mooretwin ( talk) 10:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Hi Mooretwin is edit warring at the above page (as usual). I don't wish to get caught up in an edit war with him so I was hoping you help out by posting on the talk page and reverting his disruptive behaviour? Thanks. MITH 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please read Talk:Derry#1RR_on_City_Walls_edits. Canterbury Tail talk 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
My password is scrambled, and I have left wikipedia. Tfz 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
By the magic of a cookie I was able to retrieve my password, which I scrambled last evening being quite upset with events. It's impossible for me to stay with the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration, that the simple proposals on the Ireland article are to go to a community vote, when there is almost a consensus amongst the reasonable editors there. Unfortunately a few vociferous editors are holding "sway", and moderators and admins fail to notice. Moderate editors who are prepared to reach compromise are not heeded, editors who want to draw lines on granite are. Tfz 10:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I would ignore those comments one look at BW user page and any fool could see that they weren't an Irish nationalist so take the comments as the are foolish. BigDunc Talk 13:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what makes you oppose an STV poll which would have the merit of allowing everyone to express a ranked set of preferences. Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's poll lays out all the options clearly. You claim that there is "almost a consensus amongst the reasonable editors" — where is that clearly laid out, as Rannṗáirtí Anaiṫnid's is? Since it isn't laid out clearly anywhere, "almost consensus" is vague. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree, I've shaken the dust of me from that place; I’ve to much self respect to help perpetuate the myth that it's anything other than a POV speakers corner. Bartering on the name of an internationally recognised Nation based on nothing but bias. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop removing correct information from Garden of Remembrance (Dublin). A large number of Irish fought specifically for the Allies (not just 'foreign armies') and the Irish regiments can not be swept under the historical rug. Edward321 ( talk) 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Tfz. I have archived the poll you initiated at Talk:Republic of Ireland. Talk pages are for discussion of its associated article, and is not an appropriate venue for a vote of confidence on other processes. If you think there is a problem with the collaboration process you should discuss it on its own talk page or else you can bring it to the attention of the moderator(s) on their talk pages. If you don't feel comfortable doing that, you can always contact the Arbs on their page or even by mailing list. Finally, you are also welcome to create a poll in your user space User:Tfz/Poll and create a link to it in the relevant venues. Thanks. Rockpocke t 17:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's "Evertype". -- Evertype· ✆ 16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you are getting the wikipedia blues. Try taking a week or two away from the place then come back as semi-retired. You may find that going to semi-retired immediately doesn't work as you tend to edit as much as before. It really is quite refreshing to stay completely away from the place for a short time. Jack forbes ( talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
In reverting my edit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft), your edit summary was "say where". I linked to where. Click on the word "talk" in my edit summary. It brings you to the relevand section at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names (Draft). Anyhow, I'm out of here for today - the sun is shining and the lawn needs mowed. Scolaire ( talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:POINT. -- ( ɔ| ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
{{ holiday}} A break, smile! Tfz 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC) You were right about "between" but "among" is problematic. Could you propose edits on the Talk page? We're very close to closure (I hope) and its best to try to make changes as transparent as possible. (Even Scolaire posted a notice of a full stop.) -- Evertype· ✆ 11:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Be not afraid. If I'm the lone dissenting voice? the merge proposal will pass. GoodDay ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I see now, it wasn't a proposal by Domer. But, rather just an exampler. PS: Thanks for not deleting my postings here. It shows class & patients on your part. GoodDay ( talk) 14:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Again, thank you for making this event a success! -- Jayron32. talk. say no to drama 02:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Glad you liked the quote, work away and use it. Its from 1899 so copyright is not an issue. I might use it myself under the Froude quote on my user page, it seems to fit nicely with it. -- Domer48 'fenian' 07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Your position statement was excellent. Please put it back! Don't allow other people's thoughtless comments get to you. Scolaire ( talk) 11:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't the Ballot suppose to have started tonight (yesterday now) or have I been hallucinating again. Jack forbes ( talk) 23:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Why, on 29th May, did you redirect this article as a POV fork, but today did the exact opposite action? Mooretwin ( talk) 16:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
You are now officially addicted to wikipedia. I am thinking of starting an advice page for those editors who get sweaty palms and the shakes when too long away from their addiction. You will of course be welcome to sign up free of charge. ;) Jack forbes ( talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That is not what he said. Here is what he specifically said:
Chillum did not say to remove anything. He said that it is acceptable to remove personal attacks, but that if you are reverted you should not remove it again. I reverted Sarah, so she should not have removed it again, if she had been following Chillum's advice. She should have sought an outside party to investigate, not removed it again. john k ( talk) 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to open a thread at WP:RFCN, or should I? -- King Öomie 14:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments like these [6] are unhelpful - see WP:SOAPBOX. Comments like these [7] are effectively unwarranted personal attacks - see WP:NPA. I've been keeping this in reserve, but I have to tell you I'm willing to a request a topic ban for people who disrupt the discussion. Please do not make this necessary. Rd232 talk 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Follow process, dont move anymore without a RM, i will revert! BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. If I could talk and write Scottish Gaelic I'm sure I'd understand the meaning. Unfortunately, I wasn't taught my native language in school. Must be the only country in the world that thinks our native language shouldn't be taught to the natives. I also find it hysterically funny that the Scots Language is considered a language on it's own. As I heard someone comment once, "I must be a genius at languages as I could understand most of what was being said without being taught". Jack forbes ( talk) 16:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This is from a completely neutral Anglo-Irish admin. Please feel free to continue your "campaign" against British motorway articles. Where they are reasonale, I will support you. Where they aren't (i.e. M4) I will oppose you every time. And - let's be clear abour this - I will block you if you if you are disruptive, in exactly the way I would block disruptive editors on the other side. OK? Black Kite 00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I may've found the solution. -- GoodDay ( talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Then again, maybe not. GoodDay ( talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I'd like to point out that my posts on Domers talk page where by no means intended to be trolling. I hope you didn't get that impression. It was my little (bad) joke that seemed to be followed on by a couple of editors who seemed, how shall I put it, a little more serious. I have removed my posts hoping Domer didn't take it the wrong way. Anyway, thought I'd try and clear that up. Cheers! Jack forbes ( talk) 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries Jack, your did get the right impression above. If an editors comments are removed you assume they have been read. Tfz, thanks for the post, assume it was read. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC) To prevent tag-teaming of the usual disruptive edits (by both sides), I'm leaving this message at various talkpages to point out that persistent edit-warring over British Isles/Islands/GB etc terminology past the original Bold/Revert may be met with blocks of increasing length. In other words, like the BI articles, any reversion of a reversion may be met with a block. Example (and not singling out any editor in particular) - [9]. Thanks, Black Kite 20:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}}) There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph ( talk) 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Hi, |