This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.
Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...
elements cross-posted
Hallo Jdforrester,
perhaps you still know me. I am this stupid guy that named the heirs of peers the wrong way (in your 6th archive).
Now I have an idea of a new article (or a new group of article) and I am not sure if this is okay and follows the wikipedia rules. So I would like to get your opinion about this idea: Would it not be funny and interesting to see who was a peer in a special period in time, let me say from 1410 to 1445 or so? I have asked this already on my own
User_talk. So it would be nice if you would answer there, too.
Yours,
--
VM
(talk)
16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Revolution within the form is up for deletion. I ask for a vote for transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I was told on IRC that you're very good with the <timeline> markup. I'd like to ask you for some small help with mine. I've set one up here (Talk:Speedrun#Timeline) but there seems to be a major problem with the links. As you can see, links are rendered very strangely and cannot easily be read. It seems that they're somehow shifted back. It would be great if maybe you could have a look at it, since there seem to be few people proficient in this markup. :) Thanks in advanced! -- Michiel Sikma 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Please don't violate WP:OFFICE actions and re-post/re-word a so-deleted article. It's a significant violation of common sense, beyond anything else. :-)
Everything you added back can be put in the article, but iff it is sourced from a real source (no, the old version of the article does not count).
James F. (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your robot's renaming of the top category Category:Doping cases in sport from Category:Drugs cheats in sport per the CFD vote nominated on March 3 2006 and carried out today. But the vote covered renaming of all like-worded subcategories also, which didn't get done. They are: Category:Drugs cheats in athletics, Category:Drugs cheats in cricket, Category:Drugs cheats in cycling, Category:Drugs cheats in weightlifting, and Category:Drugs cheats in winter sports.
Could you please make your robot rename and move the articles in those subcategories also? Thank you. -- Mareklug talk 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The user in question got quite annoyed with me by email for removing references to his firms ~250,000 user CAS system from lists of "common systems" that have 10M+ users ;). I've attacked the article as best I can but I bet it still reads like a marketing brochure. -- Kiand 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, can I get access to #wikipedia-en-admins please? Thanks! Johntex\ talk 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Please make sure your bot doesn't delete references to a stub' assigned "stub category". The rubbish categories you were supposed to deleted are located further down! According to WP:WSS rules, all stubs must sort into one category (e.g. Category:Danish politician stubs to allow users to check for similar stubs, and for WP:WSS members to check if the stub is still needed. Regards Valentinian (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that you are making changes (via your bot) to stub templates to get rid of some hidden categories, as per CFD. Unfortunately, you are leaving behind empty <noinclude></noinclude> block, such as this one. Could you please remove them as well please. Thanks. -- TheParanoidOne 14:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
would you please delete the rest of the categories per thie cfd Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_10. Thx. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [1] you wrote:
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [2] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [3], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. ( User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I may be interested in doing checkuser work. Would you please let me know how I could go about getting such privlege? Thanks. Gator (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
If a user on RFCU is suspected to be a sock of a banned user, and you remove the material from the RFCU page, how is the issue to be rectified? MSJapan 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
James, could I ask you please not to threaten to block people involved in the date delinking content dispute? If anyone is being truly disruptive, an involved uninvolved admin can adminster blocks as appropriate, but so far it seems to me that Quadell was acting in good faith when he edited in accordance with the MoS, Ambi was acting in good faith when she reverted his edits because the MoS is not policy and she felt the issue hadn't been discussed enough, and VSmith was acting in good faith because he feels the MoS should be adhered to. It's a shame that it's come to this because these are all good editors, so please help us to find compromise wording for the MoS that everyone can agree to. Cheers,
SlimVirgin
(talk)
20:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kurdish_lands_92_cropped.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Since I won't be able to get to you tomorrow, I would like to wish you a Happy Birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee today! JaredW! 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey,
Maybe I'm a bit biased being an avid NBA fan, but I honestly feel that the NBA seasons articles should have the logos in order to put that season into historical context. For example, the 60s are WAY different tha the 90s, and you just can't get that sense just by reading it. In that sense, I think the use of the logos on these pages are not "decoration" in terms of the Fair Use Policy. I left ed a note about this on his talk page detailing my arguements, but he hasn't written me back on that yet. Anyway, that's why I feel the logos belong. Moreover, and this is just my philosophy on life, I feel that we shouldn't constrain ourselves just because of the rules. That discourages creativity, and without creativity, all we are left with is the same bland, monotonous material all over Wikipedia. But that's just me, and I'm apparantly in the minority on this. Oh well.
I'll talk to ed about this too, but I still honestly feel, copyrights issues included, that logos can be used on those pages. Dknights411 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
My username is Cyde. Here ya go. -- Cyde Weys 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. -- BozMo talk 09:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Hi James, though you might want to take a look at Ashburnham House, since it needs a lot of work to distinguish the House and the building... Con Dem Talk 14:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read my reply at the hip hop category merge you voted on. I highly suggest you reconsider this vote.-- Urthogie 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
don't unprotect a page ( Ron Dellums) for your own edits but leave it protected for everyone else. we've got stuff we want to do to but are totally locked out.
Justforasecond 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Hi James
Recently I speedily kept an AfD that I had nominated, since I realised that I didn't want it deleted, and that since no delete votes had been made, it was eligible for speedy keep. Was I actually allowed to do this, since I'm not a sysop? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swearing... Con Dem Talk 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I see you're interested in programming and physics, and already have a book of Feynman on your list - I'd recommend more! "Lectures on Computation" (which was darn hard to get hold of) is an incredible journey of theory from the roots of computing, and really good for a higher understanding of computers and algorithms. The more personal books (e.g. "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman!" and "What do you care what other people think?") are very entertaining reads, and a good example of the attitudes that make a good scientist. Finally if you really want hardcore stuff, read "QED: The strange theory of light and matter" - it's very deep and pretty hard stuff (in my opinion anyway) but I doubt anyone could explain it better. Happy reading! ZoFreX 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
I thought I would add my wishes here - so I hope you and everyone else has a happy easter. :D Ian13/ talk 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
I'm mad at you because you removed the category "American Television Stations with Logo Galleries", why did you done it??? WTH is that??? I'm a shame of you for removing it. You SHOULDN'T remove the category in the first place.
Spencer Karter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkarter1985 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, April 16, 2006
my opinions are my own, neither you nor anyone else can stifle them. What I wrote was not a personal attack in the slightest, please do not vandalize my userpage again. TruthCrusader 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This template has survived TFD here and here, however I do understand that this is not the only consideration when reviewing userboxes. Whilst I think that this userbox should exist, although with the mildest form of wording possible, my primary concern is for consistency. The following userboxes exist, and to my knowledge no one has an issue with them:
All I ask is that this situation be made consistent. Surely either all 6 boxes should exist, or all 6 should be deleated and protected. Ian3055 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi james. If you have time, please review my edits at my editor review! Be honest now... Con D e m Talk 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
That bot destroyed my userpage. I reverted it. -- George Mon e y Talk Contribs 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there - I notice you deleted this template on the 16th April - please could you undo this, as I would very much like to use it.-- RichardHarrold 13:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
For clarity, could you please describe the specific details of the reasoning and the evidence of cause for ban of user Sgrayban? BruceHallman 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe I'm out of touch, but what are you doing to stop the spammers getting you? -- RichardHarrold 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This template has been recreated after your T1, so I take it it still stands that it ought to go. Might it be better to protect them as per AmE-0? Ian3055 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove this userbox? The Coldwood 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
Raven4x4x 07:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Erm... Are you all right? This makes no sense, unless you magically failed to see all of my edits. :-) Given that I completely re-wrote the article to source every fact, accusing me of using the word "widespread" (presumably in relation to the alleged affair) when, well, I didn't seems... odd.
Have reverted back to the well-sourced version. Please take more care in future.
James F. (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive criticism on my RFA. I look forward to seeing your support on my next try some time in the (relatively distant) future. Thanks again, ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey James,
I won't get into too many details at this time, for too many people are involved, etc. From the title, you are probably guessing that this has to do with Scott Grayban, who ironically was at the end of a ban.
I recently checked my email, and I received a letter from Scott regarding your block of him. Now, seeing the urgency of the matter, I responded to him, and we went over some details. It appears that his "legal threats" happened off-wiki, and were only ever brought up by the User:Adam Carr. "I did not ask for Scott Grayban to be banned. I posted the text of his threatening email to me at this page, and others then decided to ban him. Adam13:51 , 25 April 2006 (UTC)" [11] Scott only defended his block ex post facto, which any user would do if they were banned in such a manner. Only then was there mention of the private matters.
If Scott had made a statement on-wiki, and was then blocked, I wouldn't be leaving this message. However, he simply sent another user an email, privately, off-wikipedia, not even using the e-mail function; the contents of this private message were displayed for all, and then he was blocked. Adam Carr admittedly "posted the text of his threatening email", which should not have happened in the first place. How can users persue matters privately if their emails are displayed for all? Quoting from Wikipedia:No legal threats - if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. If you do decide to proceed with legal action, you should deal with it privately with the user by e-mail.
I have taken the intermediary step of unblocking Scott Grayban - the contents of his private email were wrongfully displayed, stripping him of dealing with private matters. The subsequent block has also silenced his ability to defend himself.
I felt that it was right to alert you of this matter and my actions. Thanks -- Jay( Reply) 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sgrayban ( talk · contribs) has just been ublocked, despite continuing to make threats. Please take a look. Thanks. 172 | Talk 09:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.
Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...
elements cross-posted
Hallo Jdforrester,
perhaps you still know me. I am this stupid guy that named the heirs of peers the wrong way (in your 6th archive).
Now I have an idea of a new article (or a new group of article) and I am not sure if this is okay and follows the wikipedia rules. So I would like to get your opinion about this idea: Would it not be funny and interesting to see who was a peer in a special period in time, let me say from 1410 to 1445 or so? I have asked this already on my own
User_talk. So it would be nice if you would answer there, too.
Yours,
--
VM
(talk)
16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Revolution within the form is up for deletion. I ask for a vote for transwiki. Thanks. WHEELER 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I was told on IRC that you're very good with the <timeline> markup. I'd like to ask you for some small help with mine. I've set one up here (Talk:Speedrun#Timeline) but there seems to be a major problem with the links. As you can see, links are rendered very strangely and cannot easily be read. It seems that they're somehow shifted back. It would be great if maybe you could have a look at it, since there seem to be few people proficient in this markup. :) Thanks in advanced! -- Michiel Sikma 06:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Please don't violate WP:OFFICE actions and re-post/re-word a so-deleted article. It's a significant violation of common sense, beyond anything else. :-)
Everything you added back can be put in the article, but iff it is sourced from a real source (no, the old version of the article does not count).
James F. (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your robot's renaming of the top category Category:Doping cases in sport from Category:Drugs cheats in sport per the CFD vote nominated on March 3 2006 and carried out today. But the vote covered renaming of all like-worded subcategories also, which didn't get done. They are: Category:Drugs cheats in athletics, Category:Drugs cheats in cricket, Category:Drugs cheats in cycling, Category:Drugs cheats in weightlifting, and Category:Drugs cheats in winter sports.
Could you please make your robot rename and move the articles in those subcategories also? Thank you. -- Mareklug talk 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The user in question got quite annoyed with me by email for removing references to his firms ~250,000 user CAS system from lists of "common systems" that have 10M+ users ;). I've attacked the article as best I can but I bet it still reads like a marketing brochure. -- Kiand 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, can I get access to #wikipedia-en-admins please? Thanks! Johntex\ talk 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Please make sure your bot doesn't delete references to a stub' assigned "stub category". The rubbish categories you were supposed to deleted are located further down! According to WP:WSS rules, all stubs must sort into one category (e.g. Category:Danish politician stubs to allow users to check for similar stubs, and for WP:WSS members to check if the stub is still needed. Regards Valentinian (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that you are making changes (via your bot) to stub templates to get rid of some hidden categories, as per CFD. Unfortunately, you are leaving behind empty <noinclude></noinclude> block, such as this one. Could you please remove them as well please. Thanks. -- TheParanoidOne 14:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
would you please delete the rest of the categories per thie cfd Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_10. Thx. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 21:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the wife of User:Danny B. (usurped), as he advised the Wikipedia Welcomer User:Wiki alf and we log in from the same office computer. We don’t contribute all that often and so it came as quite a surprise to Danny to find himself blocked by you and this message on his user page:
Because you provided no explantion for your actions on his talk page, it took me some time to track it down. At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard [1] you wrote:
I note that this statement by you was posted immediately after Danny complained on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [2] about vandalism by Onefortyone which you did nothing about.
However, at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 User:Sam Korn who did the checking said only:
Your action appears to have been based on a message left on your talk page by User:Onefortyone [3], someone on probation who I see has been banned by User:Stifle from editing certain articles for a time as result of his repeated violations of his probation and someone that numerous others have complained about. ( User:MrDarcy, User:Arniep, User:Lochdale, User:Func, User:DropDeadGorgias and if I looked a little further, I'm swure I would find plenty more).
Mushroom, I think it is right to assume that a Wikipedia:Administrator has the responsibility for stating facts, not making quick guesses to spin there own version of what User:Sam Korn who did the checking said. Your rush to judgment has forced me to do a lot of searching all over Wikipedia for no reason. I will unblock my husband and place copies of this message on the talk page of each member of the Arbitration Committee.
Just for the record, because my husband has an interest, I am the one who pointed him to the non-encyclopedic material being pushed by User:Onefortyone after I came across a nonsensical contradiction in on of the articles he edited. I also come from a small city with one of the highest number of writers per capita in Canada and where Wikipedia has a high profile and where I know from the local newspaper(s) and business/social associations that there are a number of Wikipedia editors. - Cynthia B. 19:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I may be interested in doing checkuser work. Would you please let me know how I could go about getting such privlege? Thanks. Gator (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
If a user on RFCU is suspected to be a sock of a banned user, and you remove the material from the RFCU page, how is the issue to be rectified? MSJapan 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
James, could I ask you please not to threaten to block people involved in the date delinking content dispute? If anyone is being truly disruptive, an involved uninvolved admin can adminster blocks as appropriate, but so far it seems to me that Quadell was acting in good faith when he edited in accordance with the MoS, Ambi was acting in good faith when she reverted his edits because the MoS is not policy and she felt the issue hadn't been discussed enough, and VSmith was acting in good faith because he feels the MoS should be adhered to. It's a shame that it's come to this because these are all good editors, so please help us to find compromise wording for the MoS that everyone can agree to. Cheers,
SlimVirgin
(talk)
20:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kurdish_lands_92_cropped.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Since I won't be able to get to you tomorrow, I would like to wish you a Happy Birthday on behalf of the Wikipedia:Birthday Committee today! JaredW! 12:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey,
Maybe I'm a bit biased being an avid NBA fan, but I honestly feel that the NBA seasons articles should have the logos in order to put that season into historical context. For example, the 60s are WAY different tha the 90s, and you just can't get that sense just by reading it. In that sense, I think the use of the logos on these pages are not "decoration" in terms of the Fair Use Policy. I left ed a note about this on his talk page detailing my arguements, but he hasn't written me back on that yet. Anyway, that's why I feel the logos belong. Moreover, and this is just my philosophy on life, I feel that we shouldn't constrain ourselves just because of the rules. That discourages creativity, and without creativity, all we are left with is the same bland, monotonous material all over Wikipedia. But that's just me, and I'm apparantly in the minority on this. Oh well.
I'll talk to ed about this too, but I still honestly feel, copyrights issues included, that logos can be used on those pages. Dknights411 15:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
My username is Cyde. Here ya go. -- Cyde Weys 21:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. -- BozMo talk 09:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Hi James, though you might want to take a look at Ashburnham House, since it needs a lot of work to distinguish the House and the building... Con Dem Talk 14:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read my reply at the hip hop category merge you voted on. I highly suggest you reconsider this vote.-- Urthogie 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
don't unprotect a page ( Ron Dellums) for your own edits but leave it protected for everyone else. we've got stuff we want to do to but are totally locked out.
Justforasecond 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Hi James
Recently I speedily kept an AfD that I had nominated, since I realised that I didn't want it deleted, and that since no delete votes had been made, it was eligible for speedy keep. Was I actually allowed to do this, since I'm not a sysop? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swearing... Con Dem Talk 03:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I see you're interested in programming and physics, and already have a book of Feynman on your list - I'd recommend more! "Lectures on Computation" (which was darn hard to get hold of) is an incredible journey of theory from the roots of computing, and really good for a higher understanding of computers and algorithms. The more personal books (e.g. "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman!" and "What do you care what other people think?") are very entertaining reads, and a good example of the attitudes that make a good scientist. Finally if you really want hardcore stuff, read "QED: The strange theory of light and matter" - it's very deep and pretty hard stuff (in my opinion anyway) but I doubt anyone could explain it better. Happy reading! ZoFreX 11:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
I thought I would add my wishes here - so I hope you and everyone else has a happy easter. :D Ian13/ talk 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
I'm mad at you because you removed the category "American Television Stations with Logo Galleries", why did you done it??? WTH is that??? I'm a shame of you for removing it. You SHOULDN'T remove the category in the first place.
Spencer Karter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkarter1985 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, April 16, 2006
my opinions are my own, neither you nor anyone else can stifle them. What I wrote was not a personal attack in the slightest, please do not vandalize my userpage again. TruthCrusader 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This template has survived TFD here and here, however I do understand that this is not the only consideration when reviewing userboxes. Whilst I think that this userbox should exist, although with the mildest form of wording possible, my primary concern is for consistency. The following userboxes exist, and to my knowledge no one has an issue with them:
All I ask is that this situation be made consistent. Surely either all 6 boxes should exist, or all 6 should be deleated and protected. Ian3055 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi james. If you have time, please review my edits at my editor review! Be honest now... Con D e m Talk 23:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
That bot destroyed my userpage. I reverted it. -- George Mon e y Talk Contribs 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there - I notice you deleted this template on the 16th April - please could you undo this, as I would very much like to use it.-- RichardHarrold 13:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
For clarity, could you please describe the specific details of the reasoning and the evidence of cause for ban of user Sgrayban? BruceHallman 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, maybe I'm out of touch, but what are you doing to stop the spammers getting you? -- RichardHarrold 22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This template has been recreated after your T1, so I take it it still stands that it ought to go. Might it be better to protect them as per AmE-0? Ian3055 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove this userbox? The Coldwood 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:London Eye Twilight April 2006.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
Raven4x4x 07:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
elements cross-posted
Erm... Are you all right? This makes no sense, unless you magically failed to see all of my edits. :-) Given that I completely re-wrote the article to source every fact, accusing me of using the word "widespread" (presumably in relation to the alleged affair) when, well, I didn't seems... odd.
Have reverted back to the well-sourced version. Please take more care in future.
James F. (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive criticism on my RFA. I look forward to seeing your support on my next try some time in the (relatively distant) future. Thanks again, ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey James,
I won't get into too many details at this time, for too many people are involved, etc. From the title, you are probably guessing that this has to do with Scott Grayban, who ironically was at the end of a ban.
I recently checked my email, and I received a letter from Scott regarding your block of him. Now, seeing the urgency of the matter, I responded to him, and we went over some details. It appears that his "legal threats" happened off-wiki, and were only ever brought up by the User:Adam Carr. "I did not ask for Scott Grayban to be banned. I posted the text of his threatening email to me at this page, and others then decided to ban him. Adam13:51 , 25 April 2006 (UTC)" [11] Scott only defended his block ex post facto, which any user would do if they were banned in such a manner. Only then was there mention of the private matters.
If Scott had made a statement on-wiki, and was then blocked, I wouldn't be leaving this message. However, he simply sent another user an email, privately, off-wikipedia, not even using the e-mail function; the contents of this private message were displayed for all, and then he was blocked. Adam Carr admittedly "posted the text of his threatening email", which should not have happened in the first place. How can users persue matters privately if their emails are displayed for all? Quoting from Wikipedia:No legal threats - if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. If you do decide to proceed with legal action, you should deal with it privately with the user by e-mail.
I have taken the intermediary step of unblocking Scott Grayban - the contents of his private email were wrongfully displayed, stripping him of dealing with private matters. The subsequent block has also silenced his ability to defend himself.
I felt that it was right to alert you of this matter and my actions. Thanks -- Jay( Reply) 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Sgrayban ( talk · contribs) has just been ublocked, despite continuing to make threats. Please take a look. Thanks. 172 | Talk 09:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)