Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
I just figured as long as the rest of the new series followed this format, S4 should also. How do you propose to do that? Just not include it? Toomanysidesofme ( talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"The Defender of the thedemonhog Barnstar" | ||
Congratulations for being the first (and probably only) recipient of this barnstar! For Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/thedemonhog 2#Oppose and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Banning trick questions from the RFA process. Thanks, – thedemonhog talk • edits 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
I made this suggestion which I think would solve the issue.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Then again, you have been around here longer than I have…not to mention I get like no messages on my talk page. Probably serves me right for telling you to shut up. :P — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:34 4 July, 2008 (UTC)
Re. [1] (taking this here from the DRV page):
I stand by my warning: Do these kinds of disruptive bad-faith votes again, and I will seek to get you blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Not wanting to re-ignite the hostilities, but I want to get one thing straight. You said F.N. "has a horrible record for getting Doctor Who images deleted (and half of the ones that do get deleted get overturned at DRV)". Now, what did you mean with the first part? That he gets a lot of images deleted, or that he gets few deleted? My impression is he has a remarkably high rate of accuracy, with his nominations resulting in a deletion consensus in a very reasonably high proportion of cases. And about the DRV claim, can you substantiate? I actually tried to check and went through the last eight months' worth of DRV archives. I couldn't find a single instance where an image deletion based on NFCC#3+8 grounds was overturned at DRV (no matter by what nominators). There were three or four where deletions were endorsed, and there was one were a keep decision (by Edokter) was appealed (by F.N.) and led to relisting and later deletion. So where are those 50% overturns you were speaking of? And who is being disruptive for reiterating arguments that were previously "strongly rejected"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, that's good to know! ~ Zythe Talk to me! 12:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Sent you my apology :). The only bit I'll work on is the release and reception. The rest is yours! Seraphim♥ Whipp 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm about to turn "Turn Left" into a single episode again. There were several discussions ( Talk:Turn Left (Doctor Who)#Two-parter or three-parter: Straw poll and Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Revisited) and consensus is clear that it should be listed as a stand-alone episode. Can I trust you not to blanket revert it again and at least discuss it further on the Serials page instead? — Edokter • Talk • 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem solved :-) It was great, wasn't it!! ╟─ Treasury Tag╬ contribs─╢ 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi: Would you kindly provide your opinion about the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal for the article about Alan Cabal? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I corrected an entry on the Scottish royal arms, from the arms of the United kingdom, but you reverted the said correction, please explain. Yours Czar Brodie ( talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe you incorrectly listed the new article Xyience as obviously advertising or promotional material, as it was neither, and afsd'd it. It was a stub of an article that I was working on expanding as you deleted it, but contained no advertisement or sales promotion whatsoever, as you mistakenly labelled it. Baiter ( talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
How can an edit on a talk page, of a user page be vandalism. If it were an article, sure. It's not like it was very harmful.-- Eedo Bee ( talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit ( talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see my response to your actions re Open-pit mining and Highland Valley Copper at ths IP user's talkpage where I found this matter. Skookum1 ( talk) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Step back from those opposes for a while. Stay focused on improving the article and dealing with any other concerns. No reaction = no distraction :). Seraphim♥ Whipp 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been hoping someone would call this editor on his very WP:TE behavior. Sadly, it seems that the walled garden continues to deny that maybe, just maybe, the community consensus does not agree with such overly restrictive policies for fair use.
In the new version of Atropa belladonna you keep the phrase naturopathic preparation desptie the fact that it isn't properly cited to the sources. Is there any reason for this? ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm unclear why you would try to delete an article I'm trying to recreate in my user space. You give the grounds that it is "recreation of deleted material". I've only just begun the article - how can it possibly be recreation of anything? Please clarify. Thank you. Dolores Luxedo ( talk) 22:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You're approved. — Giggy 10:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you remove a maintenance tag, you should check the article thoroughly. Did you do that? Jehochman Talk 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
you have put the article i just created 'Joseph H Scammell' up for speedy deletion. could you please tell me why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasammaniti ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
quick favor, could you add the references i have left in the discussion page of the article Joseph H Sammell i would do it if i knew how to, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasammaniti ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If the reason for nominating the image for deletion was NFCC#8, then I should cite that as the reason for closing the image as delete. - Nv8200p talk 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Since when was it possible for an MfD to last only 53 minutes?! :-) Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any approval needed to use huggle? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
[5]. Did you mean something else? Heh, cheers. -- slakr\ talk / 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. My signature references Dot Warner on Animaniacs, and how she always says "Call me "Dottie" and die!". It's not my strangest signature, though. Happy editing!!! I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! ( talk) 17:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre. I am concerned about the manner you delisted Max Mosley as a GA. Please see this discussion at GAN. Please note I have only done this to get more opinions on the delist. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. To be honest, I think that would have been far better dealt with by discussion on the talk page, it's not a hard job to trim a section, and as you should have seen from the talk page, we recognise the problem. I've listed at GAR as what seems to be an inappropriate de-listing. Happy to discuss. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 09:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering where you got the warning template that you used here. I've used one such as {{ uw-vandal1}}, but yours doesn't look all that much like any of the ones on the user talk space messages page. Just curious. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
When you raised an AN/I notice about Jim62sch, you failed to notify him as would reasonably be expected out of politeness. You're also throwing around assertions about a "cabal" – may I remind you of a recent discussion about how such labeling is a bad idea. Please take care to be civil, and avoid actions that look like harassment. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm reminding you bringing up month-old issues at AN/I and quote-mining people to make it look like they are saying exactly the opposite of what they are saying are not considered civil behavior, and so need to end. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, were you assuming good faith here? The edits did not appear to be vandalism, as your warning seems to imply. Regards, MSGJ ( talk) 11:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
here's my take on it K. Lásztocska talk 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Per a recent UCFD, you may want to remove the associated user category from your page.-- Rockfang ( talk) 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You mention that you would be willing to redesign pages, and I was wondering if you would be willing to redesign mine? It needs it. Badly. Leonard( Bloom) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember you did a lot of good work on an essay/guideline on fair use montages some time back, do you have a link for it? Fasach Nua ( talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
I just figured as long as the rest of the new series followed this format, S4 should also. How do you propose to do that? Just not include it? Toomanysidesofme ( talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"The Defender of the thedemonhog Barnstar" | ||
Congratulations for being the first (and probably only) recipient of this barnstar! For Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/thedemonhog 2#Oppose and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Banning trick questions from the RFA process. Thanks, – thedemonhog talk • edits 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
I made this suggestion which I think would solve the issue.-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 01:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Then again, you have been around here longer than I have…not to mention I get like no messages on my talk page. Probably serves me right for telling you to shut up. :P — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:34 4 July, 2008 (UTC)
Re. [1] (taking this here from the DRV page):
I stand by my warning: Do these kinds of disruptive bad-faith votes again, and I will seek to get you blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Not wanting to re-ignite the hostilities, but I want to get one thing straight. You said F.N. "has a horrible record for getting Doctor Who images deleted (and half of the ones that do get deleted get overturned at DRV)". Now, what did you mean with the first part? That he gets a lot of images deleted, or that he gets few deleted? My impression is he has a remarkably high rate of accuracy, with his nominations resulting in a deletion consensus in a very reasonably high proportion of cases. And about the DRV claim, can you substantiate? I actually tried to check and went through the last eight months' worth of DRV archives. I couldn't find a single instance where an image deletion based on NFCC#3+8 grounds was overturned at DRV (no matter by what nominators). There were three or four where deletions were endorsed, and there was one were a keep decision (by Edokter) was appealed (by F.N.) and led to relisting and later deletion. So where are those 50% overturns you were speaking of? And who is being disruptive for reiterating arguments that were previously "strongly rejected"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, that's good to know! ~ Zythe Talk to me! 12:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Sent you my apology :). The only bit I'll work on is the release and reception. The rest is yours! Seraphim♥ Whipp 15:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm about to turn "Turn Left" into a single episode again. There were several discussions ( Talk:Turn Left (Doctor Who)#Two-parter or three-parter: Straw poll and Talk:List of Doctor Who serials#Revisited) and consensus is clear that it should be listed as a stand-alone episode. Can I trust you not to blanket revert it again and at least discuss it further on the Serials page instead? — Edokter • Talk • 12:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem solved :-) It was great, wasn't it!! ╟─ Treasury Tag╬ contribs─╢ 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi: Would you kindly provide your opinion about the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal for the article about Alan Cabal? Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai ( talk) 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I corrected an entry on the Scottish royal arms, from the arms of the United kingdom, but you reverted the said correction, please explain. Yours Czar Brodie ( talk) 18:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe you incorrectly listed the new article Xyience as obviously advertising or promotional material, as it was neither, and afsd'd it. It was a stub of an article that I was working on expanding as you deleted it, but contained no advertisement or sales promotion whatsoever, as you mistakenly labelled it. Baiter ( talk) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
How can an edit on a talk page, of a user page be vandalism. If it were an article, sure. It's not like it was very harmful.-- Eedo Bee ( talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit ( talk) 18:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see my response to your actions re Open-pit mining and Highland Valley Copper at ths IP user's talkpage where I found this matter. Skookum1 ( talk) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
is sure to be nominated for deletion; so I've actually done so myself here even though I believe it now passes muster due to Maliks multiple press mentions (which had not yet been catalogued when contributors had so very recently weighed in on its "Obongo" iteration. Please be patient with this proposal while those interested weight in again. (I'm notifying those who commented.) — Justmeherenow ( ) 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Step back from those opposes for a while. Stay focused on improving the article and dealing with any other concerns. No reaction = no distraction :). Seraphim♥ Whipp 15:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been hoping someone would call this editor on his very WP:TE behavior. Sadly, it seems that the walled garden continues to deny that maybe, just maybe, the community consensus does not agree with such overly restrictive policies for fair use.
In the new version of Atropa belladonna you keep the phrase naturopathic preparation desptie the fact that it isn't properly cited to the sources. Is there any reason for this? ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm unclear why you would try to delete an article I'm trying to recreate in my user space. You give the grounds that it is "recreation of deleted material". I've only just begun the article - how can it possibly be recreation of anything? Please clarify. Thank you. Dolores Luxedo ( talk) 22:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You're approved. — Giggy 10:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you remove a maintenance tag, you should check the article thoroughly. Did you do that? Jehochman Talk 17:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
you have put the article i just created 'Joseph H Scammell' up for speedy deletion. could you please tell me why —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasammaniti ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
quick favor, could you add the references i have left in the discussion page of the article Joseph H Sammell i would do it if i knew how to, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasammaniti ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If the reason for nominating the image for deletion was NFCC#8, then I should cite that as the reason for closing the image as delete. - Nv8200p talk 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Since when was it possible for an MfD to last only 53 minutes?! :-) Thanks. ~ A H 1( T C U) 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any approval needed to use huggle? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
[5]. Did you mean something else? Heh, cheers. -- slakr\ talk / 13:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Aw, thanks. My signature references Dot Warner on Animaniacs, and how she always says "Call me "Dottie" and die!". It's not my strangest signature, though. Happy editing!!! I called the Warner sister "Dottie" and lived to tell the tale! ( talk) 17:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre. I am concerned about the manner you delisted Max Mosley as a GA. Please see this discussion at GAN. Please note I have only done this to get more opinions on the delist. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. To be honest, I think that would have been far better dealt with by discussion on the talk page, it's not a hard job to trim a section, and as you should have seen from the talk page, we recognise the problem. I've listed at GAR as what seems to be an inappropriate de-listing. Happy to discuss. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 09:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering where you got the warning template that you used here. I've used one such as {{ uw-vandal1}}, but yours doesn't look all that much like any of the ones on the user talk space messages page. Just curious. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
When you raised an AN/I notice about Jim62sch, you failed to notify him as would reasonably be expected out of politeness. You're also throwing around assertions about a "cabal" – may I remind you of a recent discussion about how such labeling is a bad idea. Please take care to be civil, and avoid actions that look like harassment. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I'm reminding you bringing up month-old issues at AN/I and quote-mining people to make it look like they are saying exactly the opposite of what they are saying are not considered civil behavior, and so need to end. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, were you assuming good faith here? The edits did not appear to be vandalism, as your warning seems to imply. Regards, MSGJ ( talk) 11:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
here's my take on it K. Lásztocska talk 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Per a recent UCFD, you may want to remove the associated user category from your page.-- Rockfang ( talk) 00:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You mention that you would be willing to redesign pages, and I was wondering if you would be willing to redesign mine? It needs it. Badly. Leonard( Bloom) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember you did a lot of good work on an essay/guideline on fair use montages some time back, do you have a link for it? Fasach Nua ( talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)