Revision as of 07:17, 10 November 2012 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,362 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Djsasso/Archive 8. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:53, 10 November 2012 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Arb: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
I'm stirring up some old dust at ] and, even though you probably don't care anymore (and implied as much during the debate), I thought I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to comment. ] ] 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | I'm stirring up some old dust at ] and, even though you probably don't care anymore (and implied as much during the debate), I thought I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to comment. ] ] 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Arb == | |||
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
* ]; | |||
* ]. | |||
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 20:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:53, 10 November 2012
This talk page is automatically archived by Cluebot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
|
ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout 20:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Lima
So, you're telling me that I'm owning the article, because I'm supporting someone else's idea of what belongs in the initial image? And when we've seen in the comments lots of red usernames and then IPs all saying the same thing, and at least one user (or more) being a sock, all saying the same thing, and then posting problematic images like the one that you support? The reason for the page protection in the first place was to prevent edit warring by anon IPs who kept changing the image. As far as I'm concerned, I'm protecting the integrity of the article. I have no objection to the image being changed, but I guess my arguments about "Peacock Images" were unpersuasive. We have a number of images in that article already, and some of them in the collage are repeats of images in the article elsewhere. I have to think that you haven't kept up w/ the history of the article, or read all of the talk page. It seems to me that there is someone is Peru trying to make Lima as sanitized as possible (showing only the "best!" things), and not showing the messy parts. IF you think the collage makes sense, then at least create one that doesn't repeat some of the images found in the rest of the article. Hires an editor (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit notice
Saw your note on Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board regarding the edit notice on your work being edited at will; it has been moved above the edit box, to make it more visible; there was a discussion thread on the Village Pump (I read the initial bits but didn't follow it afterwards). Not sure if it was reworded at the same time, so I don't know if it used to say something about your work being deleted at will (I can't recall either). isaacl (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it used to almost literally say what I paraphrased. Used to mention about being edited or deleted mercilessly. I remember that word specifically. But yeah I don't recall exactly what it said. But the point was basically the same. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- It sounds familiar to me too, but I don't think I've read the edit notice since the first time I made an edit ;-). isaacl (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I have only read it a couple times when people were complaining about their edits being changed or removed or something. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- It sounds familiar to me too, but I don't think I've read the edit notice since the first time I made an edit ;-). isaacl (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Date format
What the f*ck is wrong with you ? Stop engaging in edit wars. If you look at the history like on the London, Ontario and Whitehorse, Yukon articles, one of your buddies changed the date format to DMY yesterday ! The longstanding format has always been MDY. No one uses DMY in Canada. For articles like North America the US uses MDY and Canada uses MDY with a very small exception that use DMY such dimwits like yourself. So if they both use MDY and only a small percentage of one use DMY than MDY is what is used. Quit being a moron and use the talk page. Inbred/backwater/Albertan/hillbillies like you are what's wrong with Misplaced Pages. Stick to hockey meathead. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dude you are the one who is edit warring. You were reverted. If you don't like that you were reverted use the talk page. Instead of entering an edit war like you always do. And then resorting to calling people names. -DJSasso (talk)
- Oh and look you just passed 3RR by reverting 4 times in 24 hours on a number of pages... I'd suggest self reverting before you end up blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the PAGE HISTORIES !! They were changed from MDY to DMY yesterday by User:1exec1 ! I reverted back to the longstanding format. Come on man, use your brain. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Right and if you had headed to the talk page instead of warring. We could have come to an agreement and this would be over with by now. Instead you choose to get hostile and call people names. It really isn't that hard to have a civilized conversation. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the PAGE HISTORIES !! They were changed from MDY to DMY yesterday by User:1exec1 ! I reverted back to the longstanding format. Come on man, use your brain. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Your edit comment is interesting. If that is in fact true, then Canada and the US both use MDY since these dates almost always are written with the month as a word by policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well as with lots of things Canadian. We tend to flip flop around a lot between English and American versions of things. This is why there is a unique Canadian English. Either date format is acceptable here in Canada. But it is less common to see it 31 October 2012 than it is to see October 31, 2012. But it does occur both ways and is considered acceptable to be either. Whereas in the US from experience with some web design stuff I had to do in the past 31 October 2012 is very unacceptable there. I assume that is why we have the guidance on that page that either is acceptable for Canada. I also suspect its a time frame thing. Go farther back in Canadian history we were probably more likely to use British style and more recently with the use of electronic software like Windows making the other style more normal to us (although you can change it in Windows). The one thing I can say for sure is that numerically it is always smallest to largest, that was drilled into us pretty good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Any chance......
We could get page protection for the United Federation of Planets article? I think we have a case of IP hopping here..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have blocked the new IP for 72 hours and extended the block on the original. If he comes back with another IP I will protect the page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks man. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (s)he is going a bit over the top, I have started an ANI thread. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Blocked talk page access for now. Since you already took it to ANI I won't do anything else pending any possible decision there. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- As (s)he is going a bit over the top, I have started an ANI thread. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks man. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:New York Islanders#Future arena and city
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New York Islanders#Future arena and city. I'd appreciate your input -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48
SNIyer1234 sock
I saw that you marked it as a confirmed sockpuppet. However, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Sock_puppets_.28registered_accounts.29 says to mark as confirmed only for cases where CU was used. As this was the first SPI I closed, I blindly followed the instructions, but perhaps they are not representative of usual practice?—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah its tricky. I see it used on very obvious cases here and there so its probably not hard and fast. I use it for very obvious cases all the time but it doesn't matter to me either way so I can remove if you prefer. -DJSasso (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it.. My question was purely for my understanding.as a newbie, Thx.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Roy Hinkel
I'm stirring up some old dust at Talk:Roy Hinkel and, even though you probably don't care anymore (and implied as much during the debate), I thought I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to comment. Canadian Paul 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)