| Revision as of 15:47, 2 February 2007 editHailFire (talk | contribs)10,642 editsm →Help maintaining unprotection for Barack Obama: edited own comment, fine-tuning← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:20, 2 December 2008 edit undoCoredesat (talk | contribs)22,795 editsm redirect | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{administrator-tan}} | |||
| {| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by ]. Any sections older than '''5''' days are automatically archived to ''']'''. Sections without timestamps are not archived. | |||
| |- | |||
| |}<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-5 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User talk:Coredesat/Archive 6--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| {{User:Bill_Du/usertalkheader}} | |||
| {{User:Coredesat/ArchiveBox}} | |||
| ==BOT - Regarding your recent protection of ]:== | |||
| You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on ]. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. ] 07:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Action Man page== | |||
| What are you talking about? This page provides extensive information on the toy line... it is not to promote a current product. If you feel elements are promotional, please use the discussion page to outline your concerns, so that we might address them. ] 14:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==''Signpost'' updated for January 29th, 2007.== | |||
| {| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
| ! ]<font style="position: relative; top: .3em; font-size: 250%;">'''Weekly Delivery'''</font> | |||
| |} | |||
| <br> | |||
| {| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan=3 | | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | align="left" | '''Volume 3, Issue 5''' || align ="center" | '''] ]''' || align="right" | ''']''' | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan=3 align=center | | |||
| ---- | |||
| |} | |||
| {| align="center" cellspacing="20" width=90% style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
| | width=50% | ] | |||
| | width=50% | ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | width=50% | ] | |||
| | width=50% | ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | width=50% | ] | |||
| | width=50% | ] | |||
| |- | |||
| | width=50% | ] | |||
| | width=50% | ] | |||
| |} | |||
| {| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
| | colspan=2 | | |||
| ---- | |||
| |- | |||
| | align="left" | ''']''' | ] | ] | ] | ] | |||
| | align = "right" | <small>] : ]</small> | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan=2 | | |||
| ---- | |||
| |} | |||
| <small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the ]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. ] 17:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sorry== | |||
| Listen, I'm sorry for the hastle I caused you. I've probably been under a great deal more wikistress than I realised. I was out of order as well. Sorry for my little outburst. I'm still leaving editing for a while, to get my head together for a bit. Thanks for the nice note on my talk page. ] 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Help== | |||
| I see you have reverted the vandalism to my page, thank you. But I have been under attack by this guy all day and its kind of scaring me. I know that Lawl Vandal, Megalomanick, and Woot Hoot the Owl are all the same user and their only edits have been to harrass me mercilessly with untrue statements about my sexuality. Please, is there any way to block them from making more sockpuppets or find out who it is? ''''']]<sup>]</sup>''''' 23:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Kamope's Valentines greetings == | |||
| Hey, I noticed you reverted ]'s edit to provide a lovely gift to ] because, technically speaking, it's not ] yet. I got my gift from Kamope on 27 January, but still felt it was given in good spirit so didn't remove it. Having worked with Kamope a few times, let me reassure you that, so far, his/her edits have been 100% good faith and, as such, perhaps you could allow him/her to add his/her greetings as he/she sees fit! All the best... ] 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, I appreciate you didn't warn Kamope. If you check out ] I think you'll see why I think this editor works 100% good faith. I have to say I thought that getting such a greeting two-and-a-half weeks early was a shade strange, but it was all positive (and I don't get Valentine's cards from anyone but the person that counts!) so I (and probably a few other editors) didn't stress it. Anyway, enough said, good speaking with you, all the best ] 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Assistance requested== | |||
| Could you look at ] It was archived with no comment or admin action, and has now been sitting on ANI, reposted, without any comment from admins. It seems a clear policy violation to me. I am not involved in the dispute, but do think it deserves attention. Thanks. ] 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request== | |||
| You removed my article 'playbike' last week, and I've been in discussion with an experienced user on 'WikiProject Motorcycling', who has given me some guidance on the matter. He suggested putting a suitably edited version of the article on the 'Types of motorcycle' page, and I think this sounds like a viable compromise. In the meantime, I mentioned earlier, that I had no copy of my original article, and would be most grateful if you could please re-instate my user page and place a copy of my original article on it, in order that I can make a copy, and use it as a template for the new insertion (minus any contentious bits of course). Thank you. ] 13:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Donnie Davies == | |||
| Sorry I didn't notify you that I posted the article on ], but I hadn't realized you were the admin who deleted the article. Thank you for your input and suggestions. Just to clarify (this is my first going through this process), were you suggesting that the article remain on the DRV for 4 more days before being brought up again on ] or should I go ahead and post it there while others review it for 5 days? --] 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Valid G8 for the Deletion of ]== | |||
| Please elaborate on the logic behind removing a discussion page. | |||
| ] 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand now, however, I request that ] be merged with ] on the grounds that the former is descended of the latter and is thusly a part of it's history. ] 06:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Problem== | |||
| Is there a problem with my previous request, as you appear so far to be ignoring it? I'd appreciate a response. ] 11:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Help maintaining unprotection for Barack Obama== | |||
| Regarding , I realize my approach was awkward, and I would appreciate your advice on how to alert the Admin community more gracefully. This is a widely watchlisted article on a prominent political figure that Admins have been quick to semi-protect, sometimes, I feel, without allowing scope for the editors to deal with the problem or for the problem to resolve by itself. The last time the article was unprotected, it remained open for only two days, which is too short a time to really know if the vandalism would level off or not. I appreciate that there are different views (perhaps even among Admins) on the justifications for sprot, and when, where and for how long it should be applied, but I also think that it is fair to consider the ]. In this case, there is one editor favoring permanent sprot, others who are willing to see it toggled on and off, and people like me who would prefer that its use be limited to short periods and only when absolutely necessary after some sustained evidence that people-based approaches for managing the vandalism are not working. Periodic instances (or even seemingly coordinated waves) of vulgar or insulting edits that are speedily reverted by a dedicated community of recent change patrolers should not trigger a broadbrush IP/new user blocking sprot response by well-intentioned Admins, in my view. Sorry to go on at such length, but I would value your input on alternative strategies to alert Admins to look further before triggering sprot for this article. Thanks. --] 11:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 08:20, 2 December 2008
Redirect to: