Misplaced Pages

User talk:Coredesat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:43, 10 February 2007 editE. Brown (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,707 edits →Block: I'm not that stupid. Now that you've actually warned me about it, I'm not going to do it← 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}}

==NCIS episodes==
I have discovered that ] links to articles about every single episode (there are ''many''). None establish notability, none have references, all contain (at most) plot summary and quotes (plus a sprinkling of original research-type observations). I tagged a few of them before I thought there ''must'' be a better way to go about getting these AfD posted and merged or whatever. I'm not really sure. As you have been a pundit in similar areas of concern in the past I am hoping you might want to take a look at the assemblage and handle it somehow. Thanks. ] 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== Traditional marriage redirect (again) ==

Sorry to be a bother, but may I ask for your assistance again on ] protected redirect decision? Thanks! ] 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

==''Signpost'' updated for February 5th, 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 6''' || 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=50% | ]
| width=50% |
|}

{| width="90%" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="background-color:transparent;"
| colspan=2 |
----
|-
| align="left" | ''']''' &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ] &nbsp;|&nbsp; ]
| 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. ] 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

== Thanks! ==

Thank you for extending the semi-prot on my userpage. Appreciate it :) - ]<sup><font color="DarkRed">]</font></sup> 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

==Response to concerns==
To respond to your concerns about me, let me note that I was an admin for two and a half years and never did the things you think I would do. ] 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

== Windizupdate ==

Why did you remove this article without a vote? It's the only well known alternative to windows update in a browser... ] 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


==I believe you closed this in error==
Regarding ], where you said:
::The result was '''no consensus'''. --''']]''' 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a supermajority was in favor of the proposal. Many of those opposed indicated it was not a really big issue for them. One of the opposing votes indicated that it was important to ensure the outcome is the same as the Philippine article, which closed as delete. The later votes were by in large all delete/merge, indicating to me that a concensus had been arrived at through the discussion. Please reconsider your decision. My understanding of the concensus policy is that these things indicates concensus was achieved for delete/merge.

'''82.6% of votes were in favor of deleting/merging'''
#'''Delete''' ] 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' ] 03:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Merge''' ] 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Merge''' ] 08:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' ] 18:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' ] 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' ] 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Weak delete''' ] 22:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' ] 01:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Merge/Delete''' ] 08:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete/Merge''' ] 16:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Merge/Delete''' ] 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' ] 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Merge/Delete''' ] 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete/Merge''' ] 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' ] 05:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete/Merge''' ] | ] 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Delete''' ] 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Weak keep''' ] 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::This vote was actually merge then delete but he put weak keep in bold. I asked him to correct the discrepancy and he said the bold part was not important. ] 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

'''17.4% of the votes were for keeping'''
#'''Keep''' ] 09:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Strong Keep''' ] 05:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' ] 05:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' ] 08:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Keep''' ] 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
#'''Weak keep''' ] 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

] 02:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, I thought deletion review was a process to review a decision '''to delete''' an article. If it is for either type of review, then my most-recent change at the top of the AfD is probably inappropriate, as might be my putting the above comments on the afd talk page. If this is the case, would you please fix it for me? I meant no harm. Thanks, ] 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ] 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

== Fair use ==

If it's allowed under US law, how can Misplaced Pages be sued? -- <font color="gold">]</font>]<font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font>] <small>'']''</small> 07:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

== Block ==

What the frick? This discussion is the first one I've had on the subject and you block me from editing my user page for a frickin week. What the hell? Warnings are wonderful things. I'm not staging a rebellion. I'm not doing it to spite you. I think I should be allowed to engage in a diologue with persons in disagreement with my actions before punitive measures are taken. Am trying very hard to be civil right now and am finding it tough. Of all times you guys pick two o'clock in the morning to start this. I would think it common courtesy to wait until a more reasonable timeframe to bring this up, but apparently I'm mistaken. If I can't breath humanity into my page because of lawsuit paranoia then Misplaced Pages doesn't deserve my respect. I read a story once about a surgeon who refused to operate on a person because he was afraid of getting sued and that person died. Does Misplaced Pages really want to put itself into a category with those people. I am absolutely furious. F*** this, I'm going to bed. -- <font color="gold">]</font>]<font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font>] <small>'']''</small> 07:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:Not agreeing to keeping the pictures removed would be like refusing to open the cash drawer when a robber has pointed a gun at your head. Do you want to give him the money? No. But do you have an f-ing choice? No. I'll be civil, but don't expect me to ever use kind words when talking about this issue. I disagree with this rule on Misplaced Pages more than any other. Not that it matters. -- <font color="gold">]</font>]<font color="black">]</font><font color="red">]</font>] <small>'']''</small> 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

==Protection requested for redirect per discussion at WP:DRV==
Would you please protect the redirect at ]? Thanks, ] 15:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:20, 2 December 2008

Redirect to: