I'm not quite sure what you mean by sort of my own posts first? Could you explain? Thank you! Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 13:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
When mattythewhite said that, he was only talking about 3 stats not 10-15. Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 13:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much. Just one last thing.I just wondered if you have looked at my contributions and how many i do a day and if you would consider nominating me to be an administrator. Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 14:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung! Can I suggest you consider the dangers of accusing others of bad faith? In the last 24 hours you've accused me of attempting to "bully" you and user: 93.96.148.42 of making an "inflammatory statement" and speaking "gibberish". All either of us have done is point out in perfectly civil ways that you have made mistakes on our respective talk pages. Might it be sensible to take the heat out of your responses to other editors? To quote WP:CIV, to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated Alistair Stevenson ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
Thank you so much for your kind words! I have nearly finished - now only the musical analysis section to complete, then perhaps off to peer review. - Tim riley ( talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I responded Tim 1357 talk 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If the rude message on my talk page came from a robot, why was it signed by you? 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Kudpung. I made a subpage to discuss possible new standard questions for RFAs. You had indicated that you like the idea but the wording could be improved. When we have time, I hope we can do that at the subpage. Thanks. Maurreen ( talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In case you're not already watching this page, you might be interested in the current conversation. Maurreen ( talk) 06:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What are you complaining about? You have put a neutrality and POV flag on the article, and on my talk page without explaining what needs to be balanced in the article. This is not a productive way to edit - you should write a proper explanation on the talk page of Work of Art, rather than lazily 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)flagging the article as infringing your interpretation of wikipedia rules. This would help improve the encylcopedia.
Keith D ( talk) 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, "Keep off the grass" (not to be confused with Keep Off the Grass or cannabis withdrawal) could be notable. The topic of whether people are allowed to walk on lawns has been hotly debated over many decades: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Now, I'm not going to perversely create such an article to spite you, but these sources could well be incorporated into Lawn. My point is that topics that appear to be ridiculous might not be - and to not tempt people to do things you don't want them to do... Fences& Windows 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I know that we have our disagreements, but please keep your comments at the level of content and refrain from ad hominem attacks against Americans (for example here and here). If you have a very low opinion of the knowledge and intelligence of Americans, as some of your edits indicate, please try to keep it to yourself rather than let it affect your work on Wikipedia.
For what it's worth, I was born and educated in the UK, and the other editors who work on the pronunciation/linguistics pages come from all over the world. Even if we were all USA natives who had never stepped foot outside the country, that would not be a justification for indulging this apparent bugbear of yours. Please bear in mind that Personal Attacks include "[u]sing someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". That seems close to what you are doing here: where the bulk of your edit could be paraphrased as "You're American so what would you know about RP?". Cheers. Grover cleveland ( talk) 07:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry looks like I forgot to give you a prod when I posted this. Keith D ( talk) 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean by sort of my own posts first? Could you explain? Thank you! Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 13:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
When mattythewhite said that, he was only talking about 3 stats not 10-15. Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 13:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you ever so much. Just one last thing.I just wondered if you have looked at my contributions and how many i do a day and if you would consider nominating me to be an administrator. Gobbleswoggler ( talk) 14:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung! Can I suggest you consider the dangers of accusing others of bad faith? In the last 24 hours you've accused me of attempting to "bully" you and user: 93.96.148.42 of making an "inflammatory statement" and speaking "gibberish". All either of us have done is point out in perfectly civil ways that you have made mistakes on our respective talk pages. Might it be sensible to take the heat out of your responses to other editors? To quote WP:CIV, to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated Alistair Stevenson ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC).
Thank you so much for your kind words! I have nearly finished - now only the musical analysis section to complete, then perhaps off to peer review. - Tim riley ( talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I responded Tim 1357 talk 01:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If the rude message on my talk page came from a robot, why was it signed by you? 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Kudpung. I made a subpage to discuss possible new standard questions for RFAs. You had indicated that you like the idea but the wording could be improved. When we have time, I hope we can do that at the subpage. Thanks. Maurreen ( talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. In case you're not already watching this page, you might be interested in the current conversation. Maurreen ( talk) 06:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What are you complaining about? You have put a neutrality and POV flag on the article, and on my talk page without explaining what needs to be balanced in the article. This is not a productive way to edit - you should write a proper explanation on the talk page of Work of Art, rather than lazily 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 00:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)flagging the article as infringing your interpretation of wikipedia rules. This would help improve the encylcopedia.
Keith D ( talk) 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, "Keep off the grass" (not to be confused with Keep Off the Grass or cannabis withdrawal) could be notable. The topic of whether people are allowed to walk on lawns has been hotly debated over many decades: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Now, I'm not going to perversely create such an article to spite you, but these sources could well be incorporated into Lawn. My point is that topics that appear to be ridiculous might not be - and to not tempt people to do things you don't want them to do... Fences& Windows 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I know that we have our disagreements, but please keep your comments at the level of content and refrain from ad hominem attacks against Americans (for example here and here). If you have a very low opinion of the knowledge and intelligence of Americans, as some of your edits indicate, please try to keep it to yourself rather than let it affect your work on Wikipedia.
For what it's worth, I was born and educated in the UK, and the other editors who work on the pronunciation/linguistics pages come from all over the world. Even if we were all USA natives who had never stepped foot outside the country, that would not be a justification for indulging this apparent bugbear of yours. Please bear in mind that Personal Attacks include "[u]sing someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". That seems close to what you are doing here: where the bulk of your edit could be paraphrased as "You're American so what would you know about RP?". Cheers. Grover cleveland ( talk) 07:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry looks like I forgot to give you a prod when I posted this. Keith D ( talk) 13:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)