| Revision as of 02:02, 12 October 2012 view sourceApteva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 edits →Re← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:48, 19 January 2015 view source Jehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,277 editsm Changed protection level of User talk:Neotarf: User request within own user space ( (indefinite) (indefinite)) | ||
| (477 intermediate revisions by 92 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] | |||
| {{banned user|time=indef|by=the ]|link=]}} | |||
| This is the talk page for Neotarf. Tarf means "eye" or "glance". It is also the name of the star Beta Cancri in the constellation of the Crab. | |||
| {{noindex}} | |||
| If you leave a message for me here, I will probably answer you here. | |||
| [[Image:Blocs anim.gif|right|In some situations, the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. — | |||
| ]]] | |||
| <blockquote><big><big>“</big></big>In some situations, the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus.<big><big>”</big></big> — ]</blockquote> | |||
| <div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">] ] ] </div> | |||
| == Busy == | |||
| Extremely busy, must take a break here, but will try to look in from time to time if possible. | |||
| ] (]) 16:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC). | |||
| ==RfC== | |||
| Is that RfC still open, or are you closing it by just removing the RfC notice? It appears to have been open for slightly less than a month, and it is my expectation that the bot will automatically remove the notice in a couple of days. I slowed down the archiving while the two RfCs are open so that they would not keep disappearing. ] (]) 21:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, it's still open, it has to be closed by an uninvolved admin. The bot automatically removes the tag after something like 30 days, so I took the tag off again. (I had to revert the tag removal before I could revert the archiving, as I indicated in the edit summary.) ] (]) 22:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am guessing that the RFCbot removed it because it was in an archive. I do not know if this is the case or not. In the past it was not uncommon to find RfC tags located in archives. ] (]) 23:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, but this is not my bot. I have nothing to do with it and I do not have time right now to look it up for you. Again, I would direct you to the edit summary. ] (]) 00:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was just making a comment about why you had to revert the tag. As far as I can tell the archive has been un-archived satisfactorily. There are about three copies of one of the RfC's in one of the archives left over from other times that RfC was un-archived, and they can all be simply deleted from the archive, but that has not reached the top of my to do list. ] (]) 06:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you have issues about the length of time of the RFC, please take it to the MoS talk page. ] (]) 07:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please see my question above. If the RfC is open, it needs to be identified as open. It is not possible to add a new RfC tag because that would confuse the bot. Removing a tag because the bot removed it from an archive is not because the bot was closing the RfC but just for maintenance purposes, and should be undone. And not re-done. I would suggest undoing this edit yourself. ] (]) 18:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Discussion has now been taken to the talk page. ] (]) 10:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Re == | |||
| Like I said: Stop the personal attacks and lies right now. Being annoyed at me because no one agreed with your ridiculous interpretation of policy at an unrelated article does not justify your attempt to sabotage Misplaced Pages process. Keep the discussion at ] where it belongs, or better yet, start learning how WP sourcing policy works. If you think you need help, you may be able to get a mentor. –] (] ⋅ ]) 18:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I also noticed that you ] users who have disagreed with me at the same unrelated article to join the discussion. This is likely to ] on you very quickly. Cut it out. –] (] ⋅ ]) 18:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::So it isn't enough to badger me on talk pages and strike my comments when I vote to "oppose" on boards; you have to ] me on my own talk page as well? | |||
| ::Of course you can notify editors who have participated in previous discussions, as long as you notify everyone and use neutral language. It's not my problem if no one agrees with your ] smear campaign. | |||
| ::] (]) 17:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Archive== | |||
| Please do not combine an archive with current discussion. It is fine to have both on the same page so that they can be read at the same time, but it is not appropriate for people to add comments to the archive section, which is one reason for collapsing it. The other reason, is that for those have no interest in the RFC there is no reason for having to scroll past ''both'' the archive ''and'' the RFC. Having to scroll past the RFC is bad enough. Thanks. ] (]) 02:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:48, 19 January 2015