This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
this edit of your bot: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User%3APv7721&diff=99507694&oldid=88200655 While I perfectly understand the migration of UB, I didn't understand of the addition of Ragnarok online. -- User:Vlad| -> 18:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Vlad, and sorry for the delay. Sure I remember you. As far as I can tell, the term is "discharged" (could be "decommissioned", but that seems to be in use mostly for objects). I have edited the info in the article, and hopefully got it right. See you around. Dahn 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi and sorry for not replying on the other topics (I was assaulted with tasks and replies). I guess I owe you an apology and a correction in the post: on one hand, you are right about me not asking you (my stress in that phrase was not on that, but on the fact that it took time for someone to notice, and you were the only one to react to a message I posted on my user page and here; I also noted that an admin was watching him, and did not react - instead, he was openly collaborating with Bonnie); on the other, I have checked the entire situation with Horthy (just noticed it actually involved you on the other side) - the user (Ovidiu) was not banned, but blocked (I have a tendency to confuse the terms), and it did not happen because of that, but because of reasons I would fully agree with. Btw, the version Dpotop Khoikhoi was reverting was also partly vandalized (I'm guessing he does not know enough Romanian to notice). Again, my apologies.
Dahn
13:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me of the npov tag in the article Gigi Becali. I had indicated in my edit summary at the time that I believed there were pov issues in the sections Controversies and Homophobia, but I indeed did not clarify my position on the article's talk page. Sentences like "by using an extremely vulgar language", "Gigi Becali has revealed his true personality", "grotesque curses", "In line with his extremist right-wing views" and the frequent, almost excessive use of the word "inflammatory" were quite pov and bordered on violating WP:BLP. While I agree that the article has improved a lot, and is sufficiently npov to remove the tag, I also believe that there are still some pov issues with the current wording. To give one example, the article states that "Gigi Becali has revealed his aggressive personality in many appearances". The article seems to treat him as a threat to Romanian politics and his views as extremist and ludicrous. Wikipedia does not have an opinion on Gigi Becali. A ecis Brievenbus 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a small note - your change of "favourable" to "favorable" in this edit was probably unneeded, per WP:ENGVAR. Esn 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that I reverted your edit to the article Fire (film). According to film project guidelines it is still a stub. According to the stub template on the talkpage, in order to be a start, for that project, it needs at least 2 developed sections in addition to the plot and cast. This article doesn't have that yet. -- Beloved freak 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Vlad, thanks for keeping InstallAnywhere entry alive. Gil_mo 07:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And I think you were right that the page looks better with the TOC higher up, so it's all good. Cheers -- ShelfSkewed Talk 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to the Cypherpunks page re Eric Hughes because the Wikipedia page for "Eric Hughes" refers to an English rugby player, not the American cypherpunk, who does not have a Wikipedia page. gbroiles ( talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Do you feel a consensus has been reached on the Osteopathic medicine redirect page? If not, could you comment on our feelings about retaining or changing this redirect so we can resolve the RfD? Thanks for your input on this. Bryan Hopping T 16:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vlad. I noticed that you noticed my anal edit on your user page. How do I respond to your message on my talk page about your noticing of my anal edit on your user page? Like this? martin ( talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vlad, I'm happy to grant you use of the rollback feature. Please remember that it should not be used to revert the edits of a user who is acting in good faith; rollback should be used exclusively to revert vandalism. If rollback is misused, it can be immidiately and unconditionally removed by any administrator, and then is probably unlikely to be granted again. Anyway, happy editing. :-) -- Deskana (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
this edit of your bot: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User%3APv7721&diff=99507694&oldid=88200655 While I perfectly understand the migration of UB, I didn't understand of the addition of Ragnarok online. -- User:Vlad| -> 18:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Vlad, and sorry for the delay. Sure I remember you. As far as I can tell, the term is "discharged" (could be "decommissioned", but that seems to be in use mostly for objects). I have edited the info in the article, and hopefully got it right. See you around. Dahn 15:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi and sorry for not replying on the other topics (I was assaulted with tasks and replies). I guess I owe you an apology and a correction in the post: on one hand, you are right about me not asking you (my stress in that phrase was not on that, but on the fact that it took time for someone to notice, and you were the only one to react to a message I posted on my user page and here; I also noted that an admin was watching him, and did not react - instead, he was openly collaborating with Bonnie); on the other, I have checked the entire situation with Horthy (just noticed it actually involved you on the other side) - the user (Ovidiu) was not banned, but blocked (I have a tendency to confuse the terms), and it did not happen because of that, but because of reasons I would fully agree with. Btw, the version Dpotop Khoikhoi was reverting was also partly vandalized (I'm guessing he does not know enough Romanian to notice). Again, my apologies.
Dahn
13:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me of the npov tag in the article Gigi Becali. I had indicated in my edit summary at the time that I believed there were pov issues in the sections Controversies and Homophobia, but I indeed did not clarify my position on the article's talk page. Sentences like "by using an extremely vulgar language", "Gigi Becali has revealed his true personality", "grotesque curses", "In line with his extremist right-wing views" and the frequent, almost excessive use of the word "inflammatory" were quite pov and bordered on violating WP:BLP. While I agree that the article has improved a lot, and is sufficiently npov to remove the tag, I also believe that there are still some pov issues with the current wording. To give one example, the article states that "Gigi Becali has revealed his aggressive personality in many appearances". The article seems to treat him as a threat to Romanian politics and his views as extremist and ludicrous. Wikipedia does not have an opinion on Gigi Becali. A ecis Brievenbus 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a small note - your change of "favourable" to "favorable" in this edit was probably unneeded, per WP:ENGVAR. Esn 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know that I reverted your edit to the article Fire (film). According to film project guidelines it is still a stub. According to the stub template on the talkpage, in order to be a start, for that project, it needs at least 2 developed sections in addition to the plot and cast. This article doesn't have that yet. -- Beloved freak 16:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Vlad, thanks for keeping InstallAnywhere entry alive. Gil_mo 07:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And I think you were right that the page looks better with the TOC higher up, so it's all good. Cheers -- ShelfSkewed Talk 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit to the Cypherpunks page re Eric Hughes because the Wikipedia page for "Eric Hughes" refers to an English rugby player, not the American cypherpunk, who does not have a Wikipedia page. gbroiles ( talk) 07:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Do you feel a consensus has been reached on the Osteopathic medicine redirect page? If not, could you comment on our feelings about retaining or changing this redirect so we can resolve the RfD? Thanks for your input on this. Bryan Hopping T 16:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vlad. I noticed that you noticed my anal edit on your user page. How do I respond to your message on my talk page about your noticing of my anal edit on your user page? Like this? martin ( talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vlad, I'm happy to grant you use of the rollback feature. Please remember that it should not be used to revert the edits of a user who is acting in good faith; rollback should be used exclusively to revert vandalism. If rollback is misused, it can be immidiately and unconditionally removed by any administrator, and then is probably unlikely to be granted again. Anyway, happy editing. :-) -- Deskana (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)